Philosopht
Juvenile Court: Therapy or Crime Control, and Do Lawyers Make a Difference?
Stevens H. Clarke and Gary G. Koch
Page [263] of 263-308 Law & Society Review > Vol. 14, No. 2, Winter, 1980 A published history of juvenile courts in the United States (Ryerson, 1978) describes almost a full circle in the development of ideas about society’s response to delinquency. Classical criminology regarded crime as the product of a free moral decision; the proper response was viewed as a schedule of punishments carefully adjusted to the seriousness of each criminal act, designed to serve as a deterrent and curb the capricious exercise of judicial power (Ryerson, 1978; 17). The classical school eventually gave way to the positivist school, which blamed crime on the offender’s personal traits and his environment. Positivist criminology contributed to the development of the concept of a therapeutic juvenile court whose most important function was to assist and reform the juvenile offender, not punish his offense. More recent criticism of the juvenile court’s effectiveness and its abuse of discretion has revived acceptance of classical criminology: recognition of the role of punishment in controlling dangerous acts, a renewed emphasis on weighing seriousness of offenses, and a movement to curb abuse of discretion by adopting adversarial procedure and standards for decision making. So which do you agree with more on how the juvenile system works the classical school or positive school?
Ideological changes in cultural conceptions of children and in strategies of social control during the nineteenth century led to the creation of the juvenile court in Cook County, Illinois, in 1899 (Sutton 1988; Ainsworth 1991). Progressive reformers applied new theories of social control to new ideas about childhood and; therefore created a social welfare alternative to criminal court to treat criminal and noncriminal misconduct by youths (Fox 1970a; Empey 1979; Mennel 1983;
Stevens H. Clarke and Gary G. Koch
Page [263] of 263-308 Law & Society Review > Vol. 14, No. 2, Winter, 1980 A published history of juvenile courts in the United States (Ryerson, 1978) describes almost a full circle in the development of ideas about society’s response to delinquency. Classical criminology regarded crime as the product of a free moral decision; the proper response was viewed as a schedule of punishments carefully adjusted to the seriousness of each criminal act, designed to serve as a deterrent and curb the capricious exercise of judicial power (Ryerson, 1978; 17). The classical school eventually gave way to the positivist school, which blamed crime on the offender’s personal traits and his environment. Positivist criminology contributed to the development of the concept of a therapeutic juvenile court whose most important function was to assist and reform the juvenile offender, not punish his offense. More recent criticism of the juvenile court’s effectiveness and its abuse of discretion has revived acceptance of classical criminology: recognition of the role of punishment in controlling dangerous acts, a renewed emphasis on weighing seriousness of offenses, and a movement to curb abuse of discretion by adopting adversarial procedure and standards for decision making. So which do you agree with more on how the juvenile system works the classical school or positive school?
Ideological changes in cultural conceptions of children and in strategies of social control during the nineteenth century led to the creation of the juvenile court in Cook County, Illinois, in 1899 (Sutton 1988; Ainsworth 1991). Progressive reformers applied new theories of social control to new ideas about childhood and; therefore created a social welfare alternative to criminal court to treat criminal and noncriminal misconduct by youths (Fox 1970a; Empey 1979; Mennel 1983;