1939: Juvenile Delinquency

Apparent Decrease Not Real.

Data published during 1939 indicate that there has been a downward trend in the number of delinquency cases reaching juvenile courts. Twenty-eight juvenile courts, serving areas of 100,000 or more, reported 29,971 cases in 1938 to the United States Children's Bureau, as compared with 36,901 in 1929 — a decrease of 18 per cent. There were fewer cases in 1938 than in any year of the ten-year period 1929-1938, except 1936. This downward trend in delinquency reported by the Children's Bureau is confirmed by data from other sources. A ten-year statistical report on the work of the Wayne County (Detroit, Michigan) Juvenile Court indicates that delinquency cases from 1929 to 1938 shrank55.2 per cent. Similarly, the Cleveland Juvenile Court reports a new low in delinquency and a continued decrease in delinquency cases over a twenty-year period. A progress report of the New Jersey Juvenile Delinquency Commission indicates that the number of delinquent children appearing before the juvenile courts of New Jersey dropped from 5,379 in 1930 to 3,092 in 1936.

If cases of delinquency coming before the Court were an adequate measure of delinquent behavior, it would be possible to conclude from the above statement that the behavior patterns of American youth were deviating less and less from prescribed legal standards. This conclusion would be all the more remarkable in view of the tremendous handicaps imposed on American youth by ten years of economic depression. Unfortunately Court statistics are a very imperfect measure of actual delinquency. Large numbers of delinquent acts never come to official attention. Even when delinquent acts do come to light, the children involved are frequently dealt with, not by the Court, but by other public and private agencies, such as Family Case Work agencies, recreational agencies, public schools, police officers, probation officers, etc. This is especially true in urban areas. Thus the statistics of decreasing delinquency cases coming to the attention of the Courts, merely indicate that juvenile courts throughout the country are having less and less to do. They do not necessarily mean an actual decrease in delinquency.

Extension of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction.

While the juvenile courts may be handling fewer cases, there is a general tendency in the new legislation to endow them with an increasing jurisdiction. During the past year both Pennsylvania and West Virginia extended the jurisdictional age limits of the Court from sixteen to eighteen years. In California the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court was extended to children afflicted with venereal diseases and in need of medical or custodial care. In Florida, the Dade County (Miami) Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court was given jurisdiction over adults accused of violations of any statute for the protection of children, in addition to jurisdiction over dependents and delinquent children under seventeen. In Utah the Juvenile Court law was amended so as to give the Juvenile Court jurisdiction over 'any act tending to cause a child to become or remain a delinquent.'

Rulings in Criminal Cases.

The judges of the adult criminal courts, however, appear to be less anxious than the legislators to have children and adults accused of crimes against children submitted to the informal non-jury procedure of the juvenile courts. In New Jersey a judge of the Common Pleas Court ruled that two boys of 15 charged with assault with intent to kill should be tried in the criminal court and not in the juvenile court. He claimed that the law which refers such serious cases to the juvenile court is unconstitutional. In Illinois many children are being subjected to the ordinary processes of the criminal law, as a consequence of the decision in People v. Lattimore (362 Ill. 206), which ruled that the Criminal Court of Cook County can take from the Juvenile Court cases of children who have violated the penal code. A Citizens' Committee on the Juvenile Court is therefore advocating a statutory change making the acts of children 10-18 years old, deemed crimes when committed by adults, cases of juvenile delinquency only, so that exclusive jurisdiction over such children would be the Juvenile Court's. This would write into the law of Illinois an accepted principle of juvenile delinquency legislation, which had a striking application in a recent case, People v. Butts (14 N. Y. S. (2) 881). In that case a boy of thirteen was being held for extradition to Georgia on a warrant charging him with assault with intent to murder. A petition for a habeas corpus releasing the boy from custody was, however, granted on the ground that he was not a criminal and could not be extradited. Under the Georgia law the boy could be tried only as a juvenile delinquent. 'A juvenile delinquent,' states the Court, 'is not a criminal and is not punished but receives correctional treatment.'

Crime Prevention Activities.

It is coming to be recognized that no real progress in crime control is possible without the development of an effective program of crime prevention. This is pointed out by the California Board of Prison Terms and Paroles in a recent report:

'Except for the occasional or accidental offender, it is almost always true that there is an early record of delinquency, truancy or incorrigibility in the lives of the men who come before us.

'A warning signal is given but adequate corrective or preventive measures are not available or applied. The time and place to deal with an adult criminal is most often when these early evidences of potential or actual delinquency appear.

'We propose, therefore, and urge that the resources of the State be used to develop an adequate program of crime prevention which will reach into the home, school, and leisure time environments of these children and supply the facilities for guidance and training which now are certainly lacking.'

The Board urged the establishment of a committee to survey the whole field of crime prevention, punishment and treatment.

A preliminary study of this character has already been made in Massachusetts under the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts Child Council. The report of this study, 'Juvenile Delinquency in Massachusetts as a Public Responsibility,' makes trenchant criticisms of present methods of dealing with juvenile delinquents in the State and makes many recommendations designed to check the increasing march of juvenile delinquents to the penitentiaries. One important outcome of the survey of the Council is the appointment by the two branches of the legislature and by the Governor of a Board of seven members to make a statewide study of the need for more effective public action in dealing with juvenile delinquency.

In Illinois the importance of crime prevention activities has been recognized by the creation of a Division of Delinquency Prevention in the State Department of Public Welfare to advise official and private agencies, to hold state and district conferences, assist the courts and schools, organize local councils and to conduct a program of education. For this Division $82,000 was appropriated for 1939-40.

The creation of a similar Bureau for New York is one of the major legislative proposals of the New York Prison Association for 1939. The Association pointed out that Governor Lehman recommended the creation of a crime prevention unit in 1936 to

'(a) Stimulate State departments to develop their facilities and methods to control the factors entering into delinquency and crime. (b) Visit, study and evaluate conditions in communities throughout the State and advise local agencies as to the organization and development of needed programs. (c) Collate, interpret, and publicize statistics and reports relating to the problem of juvenile delinquency and crime. (d) As need arises, prepare and sponsor legislation bearing upon the many specific problems incident to crime prevention.'

To this statement of objectives the New York Prison Association would add the development of a plan of crime prevention setting forth not only the goals of crime prevention but the technique of operation to serve as a guide in the various communities. See also CRIME.