U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Juvenile Court: Reclaiming the Vision

NCJ Number
114246
Author(s)
B Krisberg
Date Published
1988
Length
18 pages
Annotation
The juvenile court philosophy embodies a rich tradition of humanitarian and enlightened values, and emphasizing the value of individualized and compassionate concern for the welfare of children.
Abstract
The rationalist and humanistic vision of juvenile justice has been frustrated in practice by (1) the severe problems of its troubled clients, (2) hostile societal attitudes toward impoverished youth and their families, and (3) the court's limited effectiveness. The juvenile court has experienced three major revolutions in its history. The first revolution culminated in the creation of a new children's court with expansive powers in 1899. During the second, in the 1960's, growing doubts about the court led to major U.S. Supreme Court decisions that fundamentally changed its character by limiting the intrusion of the court into children's lives through decriminalization, deinstitutionalization, and diversion. From the late 1970's and into the 1980's, the third revolution resulted in a more conservative political agenda in juvenile justice policy focusing on deterrence, just deserts, and incarceration of juveniles. This conservative agenda has resulted in disarray in juvenile corrections characterized by growing overcrowding, increased litigation, and increased rates of minority youth incarceration. The future of the juvenile court is fraught with uncertainty. Criticism from both liberal and conservative quarters remain strong, some even calling for its abolition. Because it now deals primarily with serious offenders with high recidivism rates, its effectiveness appears to be minimal. The court needs a revitalized vision -- one that entails a rediscovery of its historical vision of individualized treatment in the 'best interests of the child.' 17 footnotes, 6 case citations, and 12 references. (Author abstract modified)