UDTR — Radar mondial des droits de la Nature

The Juvenile Court's Next Century - Getting Past the I11-Founded Talk of Abolition

Identification

Clé publique

openalex:w826808110

Auteurs

Gary L. Crippen

Année déclarée

1999

Langue déclarée

en

Type source

article

Première détection

2026-11-09T19:04:47.789183+00:00

Dernière observation des métadonnées

2026-11-09T19:04:47.789183+00:00

Dernière vérification HTTP

Non effectuée

Résumé documentaire — langue originale

Among the many other remembrances being discussed in 1999, it seems appropriate to recognize that the twentieth century is the juvenile court's lifespan.Throughout the decades, as policy-makers have attempted to shape the juvenile justice system, some have wanted to abandon the effort.3 In the political arena, abolition was suggested by those who thought that individual rehabilitation efforts, shaped at the discretion of juvenile judges, were too soft on crime.4 In the last decade this same argument has cropped up repeatedly in academic circles, largely because of the concern that judicial discretion has permitted abuse of liberty interests of children and families.5 Put simply, nearly all of these proposals boil 3 The proposition evidently was first published by a juvenile court practitioner in 1938.See Jesse Olney, The Juvenile Courts-Abolish Them, 13 CAL.ST.B.J. 1. 3, 6 (Apr.-May1938) (expressing concerns both for the "star chamber" risk to juveniles and the "loophole to the young criminals in their escape from punishment").During the last few decades, this view has appeared at least four other times in the literature of those publishing on the Issue.See Martin Guggenheim, A Call to Abolish the Juvenile Justice System, 2 CHILDREN'S RrS.REP.No. 9, at 1 (ACLU/Juv.Rts.Project.New York, N.Y.) June 1978, at 9 (describing a position reportedly retracted): Frances B. McCarthy, Should Juvenile Delinquency Be Abolished?, 23 CRIME & DELINQUENCY 196, 196 (1977) ("Delinquency jurisdiction should be removed from the Juvenile court and be allowed to revert to the criminal courts.");Irene Merker Rosenberg.Leaving Bad Enough Alone: A Response to the Juvenile Court Abolitionists, 1993 WIS.L. REV.163, 163-64 n.1, 174 n.66) (expressing the view that juvenile courts are "far superior" to criminal courts); Stephen Wizner & Mary F. Keller, The Penal Model of Juvenile Justice: Is Juvenile Court Delinquency Jurisdiction Obsolete?, 52 N.Y.U.L. REV.1120, 1121 (1977) ("It Is now commonly agreed that the juvenile court has failed to achieve its objectives.");Marvin E. Wolfgang, Abolish the Juvenile Court System, 2 CAL.LAW.No. 10. 1982, at 12 (expressing the Isolated observation of Professor Wolfgang, confined to the topic ofjurisdiction over chronic offenders).Concerns about leniency of the courts have most commonly produced a call to abolish the system.See Alex Elson, Juvenile Courts & Due Process, in JUSTICE FOR THE CHILD, THE JUVENILE COURT IN TRANSITION 95, 95-96 (Margaret K. Rosenhelm ed., 1962) [hereinafter JUSTICE FOR THE CHILD] (describing the abolitionist approach while crediting judges and lawyers as authors of a more constructive approach).This concem seldom has been stated in legal literature.See Olney.supra note 3 (expressing concerns for both the "star chamber" risk to juveniles and the "loophole to the young criminals in their escape from punishment"); see also Ainsworth, supra note 1, at 1084 n.4 (noting the policy view of a Reagan-era administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention).Nevertheless, it has been a force behind the increasing number of the class of juvenile crimes handled in adult court.See infra note 7 and accompanying text; see also Erik K. Klein, Dennis the Menace or Billy the Kid: An Analysis of the Role of Transfer to Criminal Court in Juvenile Justice, 35 AM.CRIM.L. REV.371, 372-73 (1998) (explaining the political law-and-order position as a moving force behind the expanded waiver practice); Wayne A. Logan, Proportionality and Punishment: Imposing Life Without Parole on Juveniles, 33 WAKE FOREST L. REV.681, 689-93 (1998) (examining the punishment approach); Jennifer M. O'Connor & Lucinda K. Treat, Getting Smart about Getting Tougl Juvenile Justice and the Possibility of Progressive Reform, 33 Am.CRIM.L. REV.1299, 1305-09, 1311- 18, 1331-35 (1996) (surveying the "get tough" attitude toward juvenile corrections).See Ainsworth, supra note 1, at 1101-18 (reviewing social and legal cause for extension of rights to children, and foreseeing expanded rights to counsel and jury [Vol.

Identifiants

OPENALEX

W826808110

Repères documentaires

Famille documentaire

Doctrine

Types déclarés par les sources

article

Entités naturelles mentionnées

Forêt

Les mentions d’entités ne constituent pas une preuve de reconnaissance juridique. La juridiction étudiée est distincte du pays d’affiliation des auteurs.

Sources

OpenAlex · Document 1

• OpenAlex · https://openalex.org/W826808110

Statut documentaire

Pertinence à examiner

Bibliothèque

Cette identité n’est pas encore intégrée à la Bibliothèque juridique.