skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 98092 Add to Shopping cart Find in a Library
Title: Future Trends in Juvenile Justice
Journal: PAPPC Journal  Volume:4  Issue:1  Dated:(Spring 1985)  Pages:44-49
Author(s): R J Seyko
Date Published: 1985
Page Count: 6
Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice/
Rockville, MD 20849
NCJRS Photocopy Services
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
NCJRS paper reproduction
Box 6000, Dept F
Rockville, MD 20849
United States of America

NCJRS Photocopy Services
Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
United States of America
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This paper examines trends in juvenile justice since its inception by reviewing Supreme Court decisions, proposed legislation, and general attitudes; future trends are predicted.
Abstract: The juvenile court has experienced three distinct historical periods. First, at common law, child criminals over age 7 were subject to the same penalties as adults. The harsh penalties included capital punishment, even for nonhomicides. Towards the end of the 19th century, parens patriae created a separate criminal justice system for youth, to save them from criminal careers. The first juvenile court appeared in Illinois in 1899, and by 1945 every State had some form of juvenile justice, with courts closed to the public. The third period, called 'due process' or constitutional, has acknowledged the rehabilitative goal, but extended many constitutional procedural rights to youth, the result of In re Gault, 1967. But not all constitutional rights were extended; trial by jury is still not assured in juvenile cases (McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 1971). The possibility of breaking confidentiality remains a potential threat to the rehabilitative goal in juvenile cases. Pennsylvania in particular is considering bills that would recriminalize juvenile courts, but adolescents will continue to receive special rehabilitative (not punitive) court disposition. Ten references are listed.
Index Term(s): Judicial decisions; Juvenile case disposition; Juvenile records confidentiality; Pennsylvania; US Supreme Court decisions
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.