Does the Court's decision make it impossible to treat juvenile and adult cases
differently?

Explanation:

The Juvenile Justice System

A separate juvenile justice system was established in the United States about 100 years ago with the goal of diverting youthful offenders from the destructive punishments of criminal courts and encouraging rehabilitation based on the individual juvenile's needs. This system was to differ from adult or criminal court in a number of ways. It was to focus on the child or adolescent as a person in need of assistance, not on the act that brought him or her before the court. The proceedings were informal, with much discretion left to the juvenile court judge. Because the judge was to act in the best interests of the child, procedural safeguards available to adults, such as the right to an attorney, the right to know the charges brought against one, the right to trial by jury, and the right to confront one's accuser, were thought unnecessary. Juvenile court proceedings were closed to the public and juvenile records were to remain confidential so as not to interfere with the child's or adolescent's ability to be rehabilitated and reintegrated into society. The very language used in juvenile court underscored these differences. Juveniles are not charged with crimes, but rather with delinquencies; they are not found guilty, but rather are adjudicated delinquent; they are not sent to prison, but to training school or reformatory.

In practice, there was always a tension between social welfare and social control—that is, focusing on the best interests of the individual child versus focusing on punishment, incapacitation, and protecting society from certain offenses. This tension has shifted over time and has varied significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and it remains today.

Page 155

Suggested Citation:"The Juvenile Justice System." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2001. Juvenile Crime, Juvenile Justice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9747.×

Add a note to your bookmark

In response to the increase in violent crime in the 1980s, state legal reforms in juvenile justice, particularly those that deal with serious offenses, have stressed punitiveness, accountability, and a concern for public safety, rejecting traditional concerns for diversion and rehabilitation in favor of a get-tough approach to juvenile crime and punishment. This change in emphasis from a focus on rehabilitating the individual to punishing the act is exemplified by the 17 states that redefined the purpose clause of their juvenile courts to emphasize public safety, certainty of sanctions, and offender accountability (Torbet and Szymanski, 1998). Inherent in this change in focus is the belief that the juvenile justice system is too soft on delinquents, who are thought to be potentially as much a threat to public safety as their adult criminal counterparts.

It is important to remember that the United States has at least 51 different juvenile justice systems, not one. Each state and the District of Columbia has its own laws that govern its juvenile justice system. How juvenile courts operate may vary from county to county and municipality to municipality within a state. The federal government has jurisdiction over a small number of juveniles, such as those who commit crimes on Indian reservations or in national parks, and it has its own laws to govern juveniles within its system. States that receive money under the federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act must meet certain requirements, such as not housing juveniles with adults in detention or incarceration facilities, but it is state law that governs the structure of juvenile courts and juvenile corrections facilities. When this report refers to the juvenile justice system, it is referring to a generic framework that is more or less representative of what happens in any given state.

the chinese communist party (ccp);

explanation:

the industrial development of cities in the ruhr area in the nineteenth century is described. the research was based on english and german language sources. several factors that shaped growth and paths of the cities were categorized and analyzed. they are locations, resources, traditions, entrepreneurs, and technological developments. locations and resources were the most important among them; other factors may be regarded as consequences from locations and resources. among the cities, bochum, essen, gelsenkirchen, and dortmund had the richest resources and most favorable locations in the transportation network and grew to be the largest cities in the ruhr area near the end of the nineteenth century. riverside location was also a favorable factor for the development, as shown in the development of duisburg on the confluence of rhine and ruhr. resource distribution can explain the rise of textile industry, metallurgical industry, and coal and iron industries, and the northward progression of the mining industry. tradition was an important factor for cities such as krefeld, barmen, elberfeld, solingen, and remscheid, which experienced development based on their traditions through the nineteenth century. various entrepreneurs exerted influences within and beyond the local level over the ruhr area. technological development stimulated the northward progression of the mining industry and the deep connection between the coal and the iron industries.