1941: Juvenile Delinquency

Viewed as misbehavior alone, that is, as an individual act of misconduct of a particular boy or girl, one is not too apt to become alarmed over juvenile delinquency. Every adult in looking over his past can match most of the peccadilloes which bring children into conflict with the law. The implication of these peccadilloes, however, goes far beyond the individual act of misbehavior. That Johnny, the neighbor's son, stole some trinkets from the five-and-ten cent store, or raided the corner fruit stand, or entered an empty building and cut out the lead pipes is not important in and of itself. It is important however as a symptom of Johnny's future career. Is the particular act of misconduct merely a product of youthful ebullience which will be outgrown by process of maturation or does it mark the first step in a career of delinquency and crime?

Analysis of the careers and records of professional criminals, of men who have dedicated themselves to crime has demonstrated in all too many instances that the beginnings of their careers lie in the delinquencies of early childhood and adolescence. Criminal careers, in other words, do not spring full blown in adult life. A man who arrives at the age of maturity does not usually choose to lead a life of crime. The professional criminal, the career man of crime, embarks on his career generally by serving a period of apprenticeship as a juvenile delinquent or adolescent offender. The importance of juvenile delinquency therefore is that it is the kindergarten of crime. If adequately controlled and dealt with by the social forces in the community, many youngsters will be saved from the road which leads to the reformatory and the state penitentiary. The use of unprogressive methods and techniques in dealing with the juvenile delinquent, however, is bound to have disastrous repercussions on the statistics of crime.

Agencies Dealing with Juvenile Delinquency.

In view of the importance of juvenile delinquency therefore, it is highly desirable to know how much there is, whether it is increasing or decreasing, the types of boys and girls involved in delinquencies, the kinds of delinquent acts being committed, the effectiveness of the various agencies dealing with delinquency, such as the juvenile court, the child guidance clinic and the school system. It is difficult to answer these questions for any single community and next to impossible to answer them for the country as a whole. The United States Children's Bureau is the only agency that prints juvenile delinquency statistics on a national scale. Its last report is for the year 1937 and this indicates that for the 28 courts in which figures were available the number of delinquency cases dropped steadily from 36,902 in 1929 to 27,849 in 1936, and rose again to 31,038 in 1937. These figures however do not mean very much since they cover only cases which come before the juvenile courts. The outstanding characteristic of juvenile delinquency which makes it difficult to measure statistically is that large numbers of delinquents are handled by other types of social agencies, such as child welfare and family case work organizations, schools, police officers, etc. Court figures alone therefore do not tell the whole story of the amount of juvenile delinquency in any single community.

In a recent survey of the subject in Wisconsin, for example, it was determined that more than three times the number of cases came to the attention of various types of social agencies than came before the juvenile courts. That survey incidentally concluded that the trend of juvenile delinquency in Wisconsin during the years 1936-1940 was 'definitely upward' and that 'a serious situation exists in this state since over 10,000 boys and girls have started on lives of delinquency and crime during the last few years.'

But even when the juvenile delinquency figures are limited to cases coming before the juvenile courts, the size and gravity of the problem of delinquency still remains impressive. In 1937, 53 courts in communities containing 20 per cent of the country's population reported 45,683 cases of delinquency to the Children's Bureau. Of these cases, 38,985 or 85 per cent were those of boys and 6,698 or 15 per cent were girls' cases.

Of the 45,683 delinquency cases, 35,401 or 77 per cent were white and 10,203 or .22 per cent were Negro. The balance, or less than 1 per cent were of other races. Negro children tended to be brought before the courts more frequently than white children. This may be partially accounted for by the lack of social agencies, outside the juvenile court, to deal with Negro delinquents. Of the white children, 71 per cent were native born of native parents and 29 per cent had one or both parents of foreign birth. Children in the 14 to 15 year old age group comprised the largest proportion of the cases dealt with by the courts. Most of the boys were referred for acts of stealing or acts of carelessness or mischief. Most of the delinquent girls, however, were referred to the courts for running away, being ungovernable or for sex offenses.

Juvenile Courts.

The delinquent who comes before a juvenile court is dealt with differently than the offender who comes before the ordinary tribunal. The approach of a juvenile court is more socialized. It is less concerned with punishment for the specific act committed than with the potentialities of the delinquent as a law-abiding citizen. Its procedure is generally informal and non-public as contrasted with the public, formal procedure in prosecuting adults in a criminal court.

One of the great problems in dealing with delinquency is the age at which a minor will be subject to the rigors of the adult courts and the punishments of the ordinary criminal law. In recent years the general tendency has been to push upward the age limit which marks the jurisdiction of juvenile courts, so as to give more and more delinquents the benefit of the socialized approaches of the juvenile courts. This trend was continued in 1941, for the juvenile court age limit was increased from sixteen to eighteen years in Indiana, Maryland and New Mexico. Oklahoma raised the age limit for girls from sixteen to eighteen, leaving the limit for boys at sixteen. In Pennsylvania, however, a determined attack upon the juvenile court age limit of eighteen was made and a number of bills seeking to reduce the age limit to sixteen were introduced in the legislature, but were defeated.

Recent Legislation.

There was considerable legislation on other matters relating to juvenile delinquency in 1941. In Arizona, for example, the legislature enacted a new juvenile code which gives the Superior Court 'exclusive original jurisdiction' in all proceedings affecting neglected, dependent, incorrigible or delinquent children under the age of eighteen accused of crime. When exercising this jurisdiction the Superior Court shall be known as the juvenile court. In Indiana a specialized juvenile court was established 'in every county of the state containing a city with a population of 300,000 inhabitants or more.' Connecticut set up 'a juvenile court for the state of Connecticut,' to be held in each of the three specified districts into which the state was divided. Each district is to be presided over by a separate judge.

The marked difference between the procedure in a juvenile court and in an adult court leads to attacks from time to time on the constitutionality of juvenile court laws. One such attack was made in New Jersey in the case of State v. Goldberg (125 N.J.L. 501, 124 N.J.L. 272). There a boy of fifteen was indicted by a grand jury for assault with intent to kill and carrying concealed weapons. The boy objected to the indictment on the ground that the only charge to which he could be subjected was that of juvenile delinquency, triable in the juvenile court of the county. The Court of Oyer and Terminer, the adult criminal court, however, claimed jurisdiction to try this indictment on the ground that the juvenile court act was unconstitutional. In the case of In Re Mei (122 N.J.Eq. 125) the highest court of New Jersey had held that murder, when committed by a juvenile, must be tried in the ordinary criminal courts. However in crimes short of murder committed by a juvenile, the jurisdiction of the juvenile court was upheld. See also CRIME.

1940: Juvenile Delinquency

Trends in Delinquency Cases.

The best and most complete source of information regarding the volume, character and trend of juvenile delinquency throughout the country is the report of the U. S. Children's Bureau, Children in the Courts. Unfortunately this report is usually three years late. The report published in 1940 therefore refers to the year 1937. In that year there was a reversal in the downward trend of juvenile delinquency cases coming before 28 courts that reported to the Children's Bureau since 1929. This reversal followed decreases in the number of delinquency cases referred to the courts, that occurred each year from 1930-36. Delinquency in 1937 was 11 per cent greater than 1936. Independent evidence, however, shows that the downward trend of juvenile delinquency continued in the year 1940. Of ten courts which answered a questionnaire, nine indicated that the number of official delinquency cases in 1940 was lower than the average number of cases for the prior eight to ten years.

Types of Delinquents.

According to the report of the U. S. Children's Bureau, 85 per cent of the delinquents were boys and 15 per cent were girls. White children were involved in 78 per cent of the delinquency cases and Negro children in 22 per cent. Of the total number of children under 21 in the areas covered by the courts reporting to the Bureau, white children formed 93 per cent and Negroes 7 per cent of the population. Negro children therefore tended to be brought before the courts on delinquency charges more often than white children. About three-fourths of the boys were referred to the courts either for some form of stealing or for acts of carelessness and mischief. Only 19 per cent of the girls however were referred for stealing and for acts of carelessness and mischief. Three-fourths of the girls' cases came to the attention of the courts for being ungovernable, for sex offenses and for running away and truancy.

Most of the boys' cases were referred to the courts by the police. Parents or relatives however brought a considerable portion of the girls' cases to the attention of the courts. The most frequent disposition of juvenile delinquency cases was 'dismissed, adjusted or held open without further action,' 49 per cent of the boys' cases and 38 per cent of the girls' cases being handled in this way. Supervision by a probation officer was used for 29 per cent of the boy offenders and 27 per cent of the girl offenders. Institutional commitment was had in 18 per cent of the girls' cases as compared with 11 per cent of the boys' cases. More boys than girls however had prior juvenile court experiences; 36 per cent of the boys had been previously before the court as compared with 20 per cent of the girls.

Preventive Measures.

The problem of preventing juvenile delinquency received considerable attention in 1940. In New York City a Bureau was set up for the prevention of juvenile delinquency and Stephen S. Jackson, a Justice of the Domestic Relations Court, was relieved of court duties and placed in charge. In New Jersey a thoroughgoing state-wide survey was made of the problem of juvenile delinquency by the State Juvenile Delinquency Commission. The Commission recommended the establishment of a State Children's Commission to coordinate the operations of various state departments and local agencies concerned with youth problems and the control of delinquency. The Commission also recommended that a Child Study Institute be established where emotionally disturbed children could come for specialized study and observation. In addition the Commission recommended the establishment of county or municipal children's bureaus to be in general charge of local efforts to prevent delinquency. These bureaus would work with individual children and could 'focus public attention upon social and economic problems in the community' and assume leadership in community planning and education directed toward the eradication of hazards to childhood and youth.

This notion of mobilizing local resources to combat delinquency is explicit in the community child welfare program of the White House Conference on Children in a Democracy held in Washington in 1940. The report of the Conference calls for the development in every county or other appropriate area of a comprehensive program of 'social services to children whose home conditions or individual difficulties require special attention.' Public and private child welfare agencies in each community should cooperate in such a program 'which will assure the proper service to every child in need.'

In California active work in crime prevention was done by a committee of the California Bar Association which sponsored an active 'legal guidance' program throughout the state. This program is a recognition of the fact that 'one of the crying needs of our day is adequate education and training of youth in the understanding of the law, the reasons for having laws and the part that law observance plays in a well-regulated and peaceful society.' Legal guidance is 'essentially an informative process designed to create a proper attitude of law observance on the part of youth.'

Adolescent Offenders.

Considerable attention was paid in 1940 to the problem of the adolescent offender between 16-20 years of age. A study of the New York Law Society for example, 'The Forgotten Adolescent,' condemned the indiscriminate commingling of adolescents with older offenders in police cells, detention pens, jails and transportation vans. It recommended the establishment of a separate Adolescent's Court with a socialized procedure, implemented by an adequately staffed probation department. It also recommended the segregation of adolescents from older offenders through the construction of an adolescent detention home operated according to the standards of juvenile detention homes.

The same notion of a specialized court and a specialized procedure for adolescent offenders was considered by the American Law Institute at its meeting in Washington. This project, known as the Youth Court Act, was not acted on by the Institute but was referred back to the experts for further study. (See also CRIME: Youth Correction Authority Act.)

Without waiting for the creation of a specialized adolescent's court, the Court of General Sessions of New York County undertook to use a specialized procedure in cases of adolescents coming before it on felony charges. In appropriate cases a charge of being a wayward minor will be substituted for the specific felony with which the adolescent is charged. This substitution will be had after careful preliminary probation investigation and after it is determined that the adolescent is a fit subject for the wayward minor procedure. Where it is used, the latter procedure will eliminate most of the incidents and handicaps of a felony conviction such as loss of civil rights, disqualification to hold a civil service job, and similar penalties.

Another technique of giving the adolescent the benefit of an individualized and socialized procedure is the simple expedient of raising the juvenile court age limit. This was adopted in Pennsylvania where the juvenile court age limit was raised from 16 to 18. The Juvenile Court of Allegheny County (Pittsburgh) reports a 67 per cent increase in the number of delinquency cases coming before it as a result of this change. A similar change in the Children's Court age limit was recommended in New York by a joint legislative committee.

Research in Juvenile Delinquency.

One of the most important pieces of research on juvenile delinquency during the past year was Sheldon and Eleanore Glueck's book Juvenile Delinquents Grown Up. In 1934 the Gluecks published the results of a five year follow-up study of one thousand juvenile delinquents who had been brought into the Boston Juvenile Court and who had been examined at the clinic of the Judge Baker Foundation. The major findings of that study was the high degree of recidivism among the delinquents during the period studied. In Juvenile Delinquents Grown Up the Gluecks studied the same delinquents for an additional ten year period. Their major finding is that with the passing of the years there is a steady diminution in the number of youths who continue to be offenders. By the time the juvenile delinquents had reached the average age of twenty-nine, almost 40 per cent had ceased to be criminals. Even among those who continued to commit crimes, the seriousness of the criminality tended to diminish. According to the Gluecks 'the physical and mental changes that comprise the natural processes of maturation offer the chief explanation of these improvements in conduct with the passing of the years.' See also CHILD WELFARE.

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.