A major objective of this project was to review the juvenile codes of the 56 states and territories to provide a legal update in the areas of specific concern to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. As discussed in the introductory portion of this publication, however, the difference in the Act's definitions of juveniles within the juvenile justice system, as interpreted by its administering agency, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the definitions contained in state juvenile codes required separate treatment of on the one hand, presenting an accurate view of state law and on the other, as is done in this part, assessing whether state law adheres to the requirements of the Act. Thus, the following materials will indicate (1) whether status offenders and nonoffenders can be placed in juvenile detention facilities and (2) if juveniles are placed in adult jails, whether they are kept separate from adult offenders. The following definitions were used in this analysis: "Status offender"--a juvenile who has been charged with or adjudicated for conduct which would not, under the law of the jurisdiction in which the offense was committed, be a crime if committed by an adult; "Nonoffender"-a juvenile who is subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, usually under abuse, dependency, or neglect statutes, for reasons other than legally prohibited conduct of the juvenile; "Criminal-type offender"--a juvenile who has been charged with or adjudicated for conduct which would, under the law of the jursidiction in which the offense was committed, be a crime if committed by an adult. As to issue (1) whether status offenders and nonoffenders can be placed in juvenile detention facilities, few states adhere to the requirements of the Act. Of those states providing for the deinstitutionalization of their children in need of supervision* (usually applies at the predisposition stage), only Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Washington provide complete de institutionalization. The delinquent category in the latter states does not include any status offenders (criminal-type offenders only) as it may in Alabama, Louisiana, Maine, and Pennsylvania because the delinquent category in each of these states does not exclude the possibility of inclusion of some status offenses. *Alabama, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Washington. As to the deinstitutionalization of nonoffenders, the juvenile codes are generally unclear whether nonoffenders can be placed in juvenile detention facilities thus it was assumed that such a placement was possible. The following states, however, do not allow the holding of nonoffenders in juvenile detention facilities: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Finally, as to issue (2) whether juveniles placed in adult jails are kept separate from adult offenders, all state juvenile codes except those of Delaware, Hawaii, New York, Utah, and Vermont contain provision for separation. Conclusion As this report indicates, there are many areas of potential reform within the juvenile justice system. Following is a summary of suggested actions to improve the system through changes in state legislation in the areas of venue, waiver, custody, detention, and disposition: (1) Provide clearly for intra-state transfer of a juvenile to the court of his or her home county; (2) Allow waiver--after a hearing before the juvenile court--only for those juveniles who have committed violent crimes and who have little chance of rehabilitation in the juvenile justice system. Set forth specific criteria on which the decision to waive can be based. Once a juvenile is waived, provide protections so that he or she is not placed in facilities with adults. (3) Allow police handling of juveniles only where an adult-offense is alleged; otherwise juveniles should be handled by a social service agency; (4) Provide that a court intake officer only make the decision whether to detain a juvenile. The decision should be subject to review of the juvenile court. The expressed policy however should be in favor of release. If detention or shelter care is chosen, the decision should be based on specific statutory criteria. (5) Absolutely prohibit the jailing of children. Provide appropriate alternatives depending on the individual juvenile involved. (6) Provide for the deinstitutionalization of status offenders, nonoffenders, and those criminal-type offenders for whom detention is unnecessary. (7) Provide time limitations on the juvenile court process: on predisposition detention, shelter care, on the time between the various hearings--set a limit on the total time involved. (8) Provide more specifically for the disposition of juveniles including specific criteria as to the disposition alternatives to be chosen, the deinstitutionalization of status offenders, nonoffenders, and those criminal-type offenders not in need of institutionalization. There should be a policy in favor of home community treatment and for a specified period of time subject to periodic review. Placement in or transfer to adult facilities should be absolutely prohibited. There are, of course, many other ways to improve the juvenile justice system. The above represent some of the more important areas of change. Primary objectives are to get juveniles out of jails and detention centers and to treat juveniles as individuals--to understand them and to provide rehabilitative alternatives. Society |