The Time Capsule of the Juvenile Justice System

  • The Poor Act of 1601

    The Poor Act of 1601
    “… The Poor Law Act of 1601 provided for involuntary separation of children from impoverished parents, and these children were then placed in bondage to local residents as apprentices. [The statute was] based on the belief that the state has a primary interest in the welfare of children and the right to ensure such welfare” (Cox, 2007).
  • Period: to

    The Time Capsule of the Juvenile Justice System

    The time capsule of the juvenile justice system is the description of the established events of juvenile court through many years. The system is a network of agencies dealing with the most productive way of processing juveniles. It represents historical places that take you back in time. It is new and old discoveries as times have changed for the good and bad, mainly, focusing on the rehabilitative systems for juveniles.
  • Prevention of Pauperism of New York

    Prevention of Pauperism of New York
    “The Society for the Prevention of Pauperism of New York… [was] the first group… [in 1817] to call attention to neglected children between the ages of 10 and 18” (Roth, 2011, p. 130). The group wanted to eliminate the specific cause of poverty in New York City. Therefore, it was their first attempt in creating a reformatory (New York Society for the Prevention of Pauperism, 2011).
  • The House of Refuge

    The House of Refuge
    The House of Refuge opened in 1825 and was the first privately managed juvenile reformatory in the nation. It was a place to separately house juveniles from adults (Roth, 2011, pp. 130-131). “A large part of an inmate's daily schedule was devoted to supervised labor, which was regarded as beneficial to education and discipline. Inmate labor also supported operating expenses for the reformatory. Typically, male inmates produced brushes, cane chairs, brass nails, and shoes. The female inmates m
  • Juvenile Court Act

    Juvenile Court Act
    “In 1899, Illinois approved the passage of the Juvenile Court Act, establishing the first comprehensive system of juvenile justice…and [gave] the momentum to the development of the modern juvenile justice system” (Roth, 2011, pp. 180-181). It was the well-educated women of the middle and upper classes who, during the child-saving movement, provided the force behind the development of the separate court system. This allowed for children under the age of 16 to be tried as a juvenile instead of
  • In re Gault of 1967

    In re Gault of 1967
    In re Gault of 1967, “…the Supreme Court affirmed the necessity of requiring juvenile’s courts to respect due process of juveniles during their proceedings”. This gave the individuals the right to receive a fair treatment under the law of minors. With many rights, including the right to receive legal counsel. (Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2012)
  • The Winship Case

    The Winship Case
    “[T]he U.S. Supreme Court continued the trend toward requiring due process rights for juveniles. In 1970, in the Winship case, the Court decided that in juvenile court proceedings involving delinquency, the standard of proof for conviction should be the same as that for adults in criminal court—proof beyond a reasonable doubt” (Cox, 2007).
  • Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act

    Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act
    In 1974, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act was passed in order to explore organizations focusing on better opportunities for juveniles. “[It]… is the principal federal program through which the federal government sets standards for juvenile justice systems at the state and local levels, providing direct funding for states, research, training and technical assistance, and evaluation” (Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act).
  • Violating the Eighth Amendment

    Violating the Eighth Amendment
    In 1988, the courts ruled that executing an individual under the age of 16 violated the Eighth Amendment. It was seen as cruel and unusual punishment, therefore, the jury of the Supreme Court had to consider the age of the offender rather to impose the death penalty or not (Roth, 2011).
  • Zero Tolerance Policy

    Zero Tolerance Policy
    The zero tolerance policy in schools was first represented in 1994. The policy is made to promote concerns and prevent the possession of the use of drugs or weapons on the grounds of a school. Therefore, the one who possess the item will be banned from the item and punished. The policy is to stop drug abuse and violence in schools (Education, 2011).
  • Nathaniel Abraham

    Nathaniel Abraham
    “On November 17, 1999, a Michigan Circuit Court jury found thirteen-year-old Nathaniel Abraham guilty of second-degree murder. Abraham was convicted of killing Ronnie Greene Jr. [It was] a crime he committed when he was only eleven years old. Although tried in an adult court, Abraham was sentenced by Judge Eugene Moore to juvenile detention until the age of twenty-one, at which point he automatically will be released. Abraham’s case illustrates the current controversy over the most effective
  • Roper vs. Simmons

    Roper vs. Simmons
    The case of Roper verses Simmons in 2005 was the decision of the Supreme Court that it is unconstitutional to impose capital punishment for crimes when under the age of 18. It abolished the juvenile death penalty and sentenced them to a youth offender system or to an adult prison (Bartollas & Miller, 2011, p. 153).
  • Juvenile Offenders Sentenced to Life

    Juvenile Offenders Sentenced to Life
    As of 2010, the Supreme Court holds that “[j]uvenile [offenders] may not be sentenced to life in prison without parole… [unless they are found guilty of homicide] (Barnes, 2010). It is said that the punishment violates the Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment. Also, “… that young offender must be treated differently from adults even for heinous crimes” (Barnes, 2010).