Abstract
Looking backward from the present, it is not difficult to characterize the basic thrust of America’s juvenile justice system. Indeed, it is all too easy to see the biases and limitations of the system, and to interpret these as expressions of the basic values guiding the society’s response to children at risk or creating risks. Thus, we now recognize the grotesque overreaching of the juvenile court to address conduct and conditions that were not particularly threatening, the overreliance on public institutions to substitute for family and community in situations in which only minimal risks existed, and the complacent sentimentality that justified disastrous interventions with a serene confidence that the best interests of the child were being served.1
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
This interpretation of the juvenile court owes a great deal to Anthony Platt. Anthony M. Platt, The Child Savers/The Invention of Delinquency (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969).
We are indebted to Pamela Swain of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of the U.S. Department of Justice for insisting that we go through this exercise. We learned a great deal by taking her advice.
For a discussion of the operations and legitimacy of “community boards” see Mark L. Sidran, “Back to the source: Diversion of juvenile offenders to the community in the State of Washington,” in volume 2 of this series.
For a discussion of youth corrections that introduces the language of financial management as a useful metaphor see Edward M. Murphy, “Managing risk in juvenile corrections” in volume 2 of this series.
For a legal discussion of this issue see John M. Pettibone, Robert G. Swisher, Kurt H. Weiland, Christine E. Wolf, and Joseph L. White, Services to Children in Juvenile Courts: The Judicial-Executive Controversy (Columbus, OH: Academy for Contemporary Problems, 1981).
For a general discussion of alternative philosophies and methods of sentencing see Joseph C. Calpin, Jack M. Kress, and Arthur M. Gelman, Sentencing Guidelines: Structuring Judicial Discretion Vol. 2. Analytic Basis for the Formulation of Sentencing Policy (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 1982).
For a description of radical nonintervention see Edwin M. Schur, Radical Nonintervention: Rethinking the Delinquency Problem (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1973).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1987 Springer-Verlag New York Inc.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Moore, M.H. (1987). Alternative Futures. In: From Children to Citizens. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-8707-7_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-8707-7_6
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4613-8709-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-4613-8707-7
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive