In the late 17th and early 18th century, the criminal justice system began punishing youths for the crimes that they had committed. Without much of a juvenile system, the convicted youths, of all ages and genders, were not only confined with the adult criminals but the minors also received the same punishments. However, between the 18th and 19th centuries, there was a gradual transformation in the way that juvenile offenders were handled.
The New York House of Refuge, established in 1825, became the first movement toward a juvenile justice system, these institutions were located in urban areas for youth labeled as abandoned, delinquent or hopeless. Within a few years, institutions were developed in Boston and Philadelphia and by the 1840s, approximately 25 more facilities were constructed throughout the country. 'The primary motive of the juvenile court was to provide rehabilitation and protective supervision for youth. The court was intended to be a place where the child would receive individualized attention from a concerned judge. Court hearings were informal and judges exercised broad discretion on how each case was handled', (CJCJ, n.d). However, in the 1950s-1960s the public had shown concerns about the effectiveness of the juvenile justice system due to the inconsistencies in judge's orders. In the 1960s, the Supreme Court made a series of decisions that formalized the juvenile courts and introduce more due process protections such as the right to counsel.
In the state of Washington, the juvenile justice system was slow to react to the changes made by the rest of the nation; it wasn't until 1913 that Washington developed its first juvenile system. Even then, the states' laws didn't provide the courts with any sentencing standards; 'sentencing was based more on the welfare of the child than the concepts of guilt or innocence,' (Merlo, A. V., Benekos, P. J., Champion, D. J, n.d). In 1974, 60 years later, the US Congress passed the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act to improve on the juvenile justice system in the United States and provide funding for programs to prevent juvenile delinquency, (NCJRS). It took Washington State another 3 years to enact their own standards, the Juvenile Justice Act of 1977 (chapter 13.40 RCW) which set the standards and goals to hold juvenile offenders accountable and also gave the courts the groundwork for sentencing; however, for more violent juveniles, this act would prove inadequate. 'Juvenile arrests for murder and non-negligent manslaughter jumped 617% from only six arrests in 1984 to forty-three in 1996,' with forty-eight arrests in 1994 (Lacourse, D.). All across the board, juvenile arrests soared: weapon carrying and possession rose 116%, robberies jumped 96% from 361 to 707, from 371 to 800, all assaults exploded 140% from 3301 to 7924, and forcible rape increased 59% from 96 to 153, (Lacourse, D.). In 1997, Washington State jointly sponsored House Bill 3900; 'HB 3900 was designed to refocus the juvenile system on the first-time and non-violent offenders, increase accountability for both juvenile offenders and their responsible adults, and increase deterrence.' (Lacourse, D.).
The predominant philosophy behind the juvenile system is that the minors can learn from the mistakes they have made with the assistance of guidance, rehabilitation programs, and education. The purpose is to give the juvenile a second chance, when possible, rather than simply incarcerating them and labeling them as a criminal; the focus in juvenile cases is less retributive and more rehabilitative. The difference in the philosophy from adult to juvenile systems is the result of a few key differences; from arrest terminology to sentencing. For example, when an adult is picked up for a crime committed they are 'under arrest', whereas a juvenile has been 'taken into custody;' when they are charged, juveniles are accused of a delinquent act and do not have the right to a trial with a jury, the cases are decided just by the judge himself. Adults are accused of a crime and in a felon will have the right to trial by jury. Also, sentencing for a juvenile requires that the minor go through a rehabilitation program, receiving counseling and as well as regular education.
Many feel that juvenile dependency and juvenile delinquency are the same because they both are held in a juvenile system court, however, there is a distinguished difference between the two: a juvenile delinquent is a minor who has committed an act of crime, these charges are filed by a prosecutor or officer. The juvenile will not have a standard trail such as an adult would, rather they go through an adjudication process where they will receive a disposition and a sentence from a judge. The courts may choose to send the juvenile to a traditional juvenile detention facility or place the juvenile under house arrest. As well as sentence them to counseling, curfews, and probation.
Juvenile dependency is the result of a parent or guardian not taking care of the minor. The judge's decision in juvenile dependency cases is whether or not to remove a minor from the care or home of their parent/guardian; these cases will involve a social worker, who will investigate the situation in the home(s). It is not in the courts' interest to pull a minor out of their home, in some situations they will work with the parents/guardians. Reunification is when the judge and social worker will force the parents to better themselves and their homes in a variety of different ways so that they may keep their family together.
One of the biggest differences between adult and juvenile offenders is the importance of confidentiality, for multiple reasons. The juvenile courts recognize that these offenders are minors, many with their entire life ahead of them; keeping their criminal background confidential helps the minor later in life. Sealing the juvenile records is to protect the defendants' chances of gainful employment or higher education when they are released. Not allowing the media or public access to the crimes/record helps avoid the child from additional damage as well as allowing family members to avoid stigma and negative reputation as well as avoid deterring children and family members from reporting and testifying to instances of abuse or sexual molestation.
The current juvenile justice system in the United States, and specifically Washington State is constantly changing in order to keep moving towards protecting those youths that are inclined to commit crimes. By allowing judges to individualize their sentences on a case-by-case basis, the justice system can strive for fair justice, work to reform these children and prevent them from reoffending.