Background:
The Juvenile Justice System has evolved throughout the years since it was established in
Chicago in 1899. At that time, juveniles were treated unfairly by the law and punished
excessively. If we take a look at the system today and compare it to how it first began, we will
see the dramatic change and the way it has modified.
The evolution can be broken up into four stages of reform. (Beauttler and Bell,2009;
Scott and Steinberg, 2010). These four stages are pivotal because it has led up the system we
have in today’s society. The four stages have been found in the “Reforming Juvenile Justice: A
developmental approach” by Richard Bonnie, Robert Johnson, Betty Chemers and Julie Schuck.
During each stage, different policy makers approached juvenile crime based on different
perspectives and policies of other periods.
The first stage of juvenile justice reform is the rehabilitative model. This stage began
during the late 19th and 20th centuries. During this time, the progressive era began to take a huge
impact on society. For example, reformers such as Jane Adams, initiated the first juvenile court.
(Howell,1997; Beauttler and Bell,2010). Before this reform, there was no mercy for juveniles.
Throughout this time children over the age of four-teen we presumed to have the capacity for
criminal intent. (Patton, 1349). The initial process consisted of minors being arrested, held in
custody and sentenced immediately. Four-teen year olds in this era were imprisoned in the same
jail as adults even if it was different category crimes. Ironically, even when children were being
treated like adults in the system, they did not have the same rights as adults. Minors did not have
a right to bail, indictment by grand jury, and right to a public trial (Conward, 41) All the
problems in this era led to the changes in the system that will be discussed shortly.
The rehabilitative model served as an initial base of the juvenile court and shined a light
on the goals of the system for the future. During the late 1960s, criminal responsibility was never
art of the juvenile justice. The purpose of delinquency dispositions was to rehabilitate young
offenders and not to punish them for their crime. (Mack,1909; Lindsey and O’Higgings,1970). It
was said that the traditional juvenile court practically was not a court at all. The proceedings
were not adversarial and announced its purpose was diagnosis and prescription rather than
adjunction. (Lindsey and O’Higgins, 1970) Due to this goal of a non- adversarial system,
juveniles were not granted the rights of certain proceedings such as; the right to an attorney, right
to witness and all due process rights. This informality has a later effect throughout the time.
Between 1899 and 1925, reformers from the progressive era patted themselves on the
back because their mission for the juvenile justice system was very successful. Every state
