U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Impact of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act in Missouri

NCJ Number
74309
Journal
Juvenile and Family Court Journal Volume: 31 Issue: 4 Dated: (November 1980) Pages: 77-83
Author(s)
S H Decker; D White
Date Published
1980
Length
7 pages
Annotation
A review of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 and its implementation in Missouri discusses weaknesses of the legislation along with compliance problems.
Abstract
The traditional parens patriae philosophy of juvenile justice which emphasized corrective treatment and nonadversary proceedings was severely affected by the due process requirements mandated in the Gault decision. This ruling also led to the development of Persons in Need of Supervision (PINS) statutes in most States, expanded use of formalized diversion, and increased formalization of juvenile procedure. While Gault pushed the juvenile court in the direction of the criminal law model, it also created a separate category of behaviors that were exempt from procedural protections. The 1974 Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act sought to promote State use of diversionary programs. The act has not been fully implemented because of financial burdens placed on States by fund-matching requirements and the mandate that all status offenders must be detained in shelters within 2 years. Furthermore, States face the dilemma, when a juvenile offender is apprehended, of deciding whether to follow the preventive philosophy of the legislation or the due process regulations advocated in Gault and similar decisions. Missouri's difficulties in complying with provisions of the act in 1976 are detailed and typify problems experienced in other States. Status offender cases are unevenly distributed among the State's 43 judicial circuits, with urban areas having the largest concentrations. Only 14 circuits reported that status offenders were detained in separate facilities, and many jurisdictions openly admitted that similar procedures were used for both delinquents and status offenders. Most opposition to the act stemmed from the excessive financial burden it would impose to construct new facilities or renovate old ones. The lack of flexibility in the act's provisions were also criticized. in conclusion, the effectiveness of the act was limited because it required large expenditures of money, ignored the conflict between due process and treatment ideologies, and decentralized responsibility for implementation. A bibliography of 9 references is appended.