Nonintervention Model

Problems with the Juvenile Justice System

Since its conception in 1899, the juvenile court established and adhered to the concept of parens patriae (substitute parent). According to this policy, the court was responsible for the protection and welfare of all youths; it was the legal authority backing up parents and community-based organizations. As such, the court could intervene in the lives of delinquent youths to correct their behavior. Under such an ostensibly paternalistic system, the correction of deviant or socially inappropriate behavior became almost synonymous with legislating morality. In effect, juvenile behavior could be regulated and based on moral discretion, rather than on proper guidelines defining punishable acts.

However, neither a clear definition of what constituted “delinquent behavior” nor a commensurate prescription addressing juvenile infractions was forthcoming. With virtually unlimited judicial jurisdiction, the court system found itself faced with the Herculean task of processing an overabundance of cases, most of which were nonviolent, victimless crimes. At the intake level, where juveniles first came into contact with the system, police were guided by personal discretion in deciding how to proceed with a particular case. Their decision to forward a complaint to the court relied on subjective interpretations of the offensive event, a youth's offense record, and offense frequency. Police could also base their decisions on discriminatory factors such as race and gender. In the absence of clear-cut criteria for proscribed behavior and respective legal sanctions, any behavior authorities deemed inappropriate and delinquent could be recommended for court action.

During the 1970s, concern grew over the lack of due process accorded to delinquent youths and the unlimited jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Without proper screening techniques at the intake level, a disproportionate number of youths committing minor [Page 1092]crimes were coming in contact with the full force of the juvenile justice system. Moreover, the behaviors for which juveniles were prosecuted were generally not violent or seriously harmful. Truancy, underage drinking, and running away from home—crimes that would not be deemed illegal in an adult court—were all infractions that brought youths in contact with the court system. Inconsistencies were also prevalent at the judicial level, as court sanctions did not seem commensurate with the relatively benign nature of most juvenile offenses. Punitive measures typically ranged from compulsory participation in treatment programs to more severe punishments such as institutionalization or incarceration.

...