p 55-1084 RED HEADED STEPCHILD Part I
Chapter FOUR continued "Young Offender and the Criminal Law in Massachusetts" p 17-34
THESIS p17 a break was inevitable,and Wells, far ahead of his day in penological philosophy, resigned. The idea of juvenile delinquency as a problem in education was, however, destined to live.Simultaneously with Mr. Wells' retirement,an "association of gentlemen of great respectability" purchased Thompson's Island in Boston Harbor containing about twenty acres of land, where they erected a farm school for the education and reformation of boys who were exposed to extraordinary temptations and "who were in danger of becoming vicious and dangerous."Another charitable association, the boston Asylum, had been incorporated in 1814 to receive, instruct, and employ indigent boys of Boston, and in 1835 this institution was merged with the new Farm School on Thompson's Island under the title of the boston Asylum and Farm School for Indigent Boys. Since this establishment received only such boys as had not yet committed crime, its function was wholly preventive, and in fact, the number of inmates of the Boston House of Reformation was reduced as a result of the work of this institution. OTHER JUVENILE REFORM SCHOOLS The impetus for the establishment of the House of Reformation in boston in 1826, for the New York House of Refuge in 1824, and for the House of Refuge in Philadelphia in 1826, came from England. The agitation of the public conscience in Great Britain in the eighteen twenties resulted in the English Society for the Improvement of Prison Discipline and for the Reformation of Juvenile Delinquents.The spirit of this work spread both to continental Europe and America.After this, the movement for the reformation of young offenders lagged for about twenty years.Before 1850 there was established in addition to those mentioned above only the State Reform School of Massachusetts in 1848 [now the Lyman School] , the Western House of Refuge at Rochester, New York, in 1846, and a few privately supported homes, mostly for girls. About 1850 there was a renewal of interest, which led to the founding of many of the strongest schools, which have carried their work down to the present time.These reform schools include the Massachusetts Reformatiory [for boys], the Industrial School for Boys at Shirley, the Suffolk School [for Boys], the Lyman School [for boys], the Industrial School for Girls at Lancaster, and the Plummer Farm School at Salem. Industrial work was provided, with the idea of future use in the community, and education was stressed.These schools have largely taken the place of the walled prisons for juvenile delinquents. Today, whenever possible, they are located in the country, and wholesome outdoor life is relied upon as a factor in reformation. EARLY LEGISLATION RESTRICTED TO JUVENILES Laws with special reference to young offenders were enacted in Massachusetts before similar legislation was passed in other states. By an act of 1847 the first state reformatory in the United States was established in Westboro, Massachusetts (now the Lyman School for boys). In 1870 it was provided that in the county of Suffolk (mainly Boston) all children under seventeen years of age who were brought before the court should "have the complaints against them heard and determined by themselves, separate from the general and ordinary criminal business." (UNDERLINED) This measure was the first provision of its kind passed in the United States. The first legislative action in the United States with regard to the appointment of a judicial official for the trial of children appeared in 1872 when the executive was authorized to "designate and commission such number of justices of the peace as the public interest and convenience may require to try juvenile offenders."The provision was repealed in 1877.Perhaps the first statutory use of the term "session for juvenile offenders" appeared in the act of 1877 which provided that juvenile offenders should be tried apart from the trial of other criminal cases, at suitable times.These hearings were to be known as the session for juvenile offenders, and a separate record and docket were to be kept. Massachusetts boasts of the fact that it is known as "the home of probation." In 1870 a visiting agent of the board of state charities, whose function corresponds to that of the probation officer today, was authorized. This agent was to be notified of complaints pending against children under seventeen years of age, was to investigate their cases, attend their trials,and protect their interests in general.. He stood between the child and the reformatory, and his recommendation might result in placing the child in a house with a private family or in any other disposal which seemed to him desirable.Thus what was in effect juvenile probation was frequently used in the period from 1870 to 1880 in Massachusetts.Its good results were, in fact,responsible for the probation system for adults, which was created by a law in 1878, and 1880, when paid probation officers were authorized throughout the state.The probation law of 1891 provided a paid probation officer for each municipal,police, or district court.Under these circumstances, the former provision for the primary intervention in juvenile cases by the agent of the state board of charity proved cumbrous and was superseded by the provisions of the Delinquent Children Act of 1906. The basis of the present court procedure so far as young offenders are concerned is to be found in an "Act Relative to Delinquent Children" which was passed on May 24th, 1906. [Footnote ONE Massachusetts Acts and Resolves,1906. Chapter 413.] Definitions indicating changed points of view are contained in this act. A delinquent is defined in this statute as anyone between seven and seventeen years of age who has violated a city ordinance or town by-law or committed an offense not punishable by death or by imprisonment for life.A wayward child is designated as one between seven and seventeen who habitually associates with the vicious or immoral or who is growing up in circumstances inducing an immoral,vicious, or criminal life. It is emphasized that the law should be liberally construed and that the chiuldren should be treated not as criominals but as in need of aid,encouragement, and guidance.It was made the aim of the court to approximate the care which the children should have received from the parents. The proceedings against children under this act are not to be regarded as criminal in character.No child under fourteen may be committed to a lockup either in default of bail or fine or upon conviction of any offense not punishable by death or by imprisonment for life. The parent or guardian is to be summoned to the hearing, and the child may appeal to the Superior Court. This act stresses the importance of having the session for children at a separate time and when practicable in a separate place from that of criminal trials and forbids any minor to attend a hearing unless he is needed. It further stipulates that it is the duty of the probation officer to investigate each case of waywardness or delinquency and to report on the character, record, and environment of his charge. He is required to attend the trial, to be ready to assist the court with information, and at the end of the probation period to report the conduct of trhe child under his supervision.A delinquent child's case may be placed on file, or the child may be placed under the care of a probation officer.If he proves unmanageable, he is to be committed until twenty-one years of age, if a boy under fifteen, to the Lyman School for Boys, and if a girl under seventeen, to the State Industrial School for Girls. It is the privilege of the court to commit any delinquent child to any institution excepting a jail or house of correction. If it is found that the parent is in any way responsible for the juvenile delinquency, he may be fined not more thasn $50.00 or imprisoned not more than six months. In an "Act Authorizing Probation Officers for Children" in 1908 [Footnote ONE Massachusetts Acts and Resolves ; 1908. Chapter 637.] each inferior court whose district has a population of 30,000 to 125,000 is authorized to appoint a paid probation officer for wayward and delinquent children. The Massachusetts Commission on Probation was created by law in the same year. It has supervision of the probation officers in all the courts of the state. The Commission consists of five members appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court. Its powers consist of prescribing records to be kept by the probation officers and to require the reports which it deems necessary.Beyond these items, its powers are only advisory,but it is charged with the responsibility of coordinating the work and promoting an exchange of information between officers. [Footnote TWO National Probation Association, Proceedings 1923 (underlined), (1924) p. 208] The juvenile court movement is one of the most important developments in the history of penology. It affords marked contrasts with the earlier methodd of identical treatment for both young and old offenders. The first juvenile court was established in Chicago in 1899. After that date others followed rapidly. Within ten years, twenty-two states had passed similar laws to that of Illinois, and by 1920 all but three states - Maine, Wyoming, and Connecticut had done so. In these three states some features of the method of procedure used in the juvenile court were to be found. The Boston Juvenile Court is the only Juvenile Court in Massachusetts which was established by a special law and which has "independent jurisdiction." [p 22 Footnote One Evelina Belden, (underlined) "Couts in the United States hearing children's cases." United States Children's Bureau. Publication No. 65 (1920) p. 76] The remaining courts hearing children's cases come under the police, district, or municipal court systems. In 1918 [Footnote TWOibid. p. 28] there were seventy-one courts in the state which were reported as hearing children's cases. Two-fifths of these had a significant amount "of specialization and organization for work with children." The others were "general courts" and did not report specially organized juvenile work. In the latter cases, the judges devoted most of their time to other court duties. All of the courts made use of probation. The act "to establish the Boston Juvenile Court" was approved on June 15, 1906 [Footnote THREE Massachusetts Acts and Resolves. 1906. CHAPTER 489.] It provides for one justice and two special justices to be appointed by the executive. All complaints which relate to children under seventeen are to be transferred p.23 to this court, and so far as possible the court is ordered to hear all cases in chambers. All unnecessary persons are to be excluded. The Boston Juvenile Court was largely determined by the personality of its presideing officer. Mr. Roy H. Cushman, for eight years a probation officer of the court, has portrayed the character of Harvey Humphrey Baker, the court's first judge. He has made it evident that the court WAS Judge Baker and attributes the high rank of the boston court to the "work and eminent service" of its first magistrate. When the Governor appointed Mr. Baker judge, there was open speculation as to whether he would be a successful worker with boys because it was assumed that such a position required a man who was informal, able to meet boys on their own level, and a man whose boyhood was somewhat similar to that of the children's whom he aimed to guide. Judge Baker was a bachelor, a man who had led a life free from care in the matter of earning a living, and was a citizen carefully trained in self discipline.He proved to be very successful, and his success has been attributed to "his sense of fairness, his untiring devotion to duty, his great patience, his firmness when occasion demanded, his judicial turn of mind, his profound legal sense and knowledge of the law, his keen intelligence, his tactfulness - but above all to the beauty, simplicity, and genuineness of his personal character. Such a nature as his conquered by force of its sincerity. All who came in contact with him were enobled." [p 23 FOOTNOTE ONE Judge Baker Foundation, "underlined HARVEY HUMPHREY BAKER: MAN AND JUDGE." Publication No. One (1920) p 4. ]. Judge Baker took into account the problems of the parents as well as those of the child and invariably insisted upon seeing at least one of the parents of every child who came before him. If it were inconvenient for the parents to appear in the daytime, he arranged to see them in the evening.Before Judge Baker accepted the judgeship. he traveled about the country and visited many of the already existing juvenile courts and institutions for delinquent children and industrial schools. He witnessed the operation of methods which were proving successful and availed himself of every opportunity to talk with any expert whose advice might be valuable to him. When he committed a child, he knew the institution to which he was sending him, sometimes visited him at the institution, and even watched his career while there and after parole Since its establishment the Boston Juvenile Court has been "administered on the assumption that the fundamental function of a juvenile court is to put each child who comes before it in a normal relation to society as promptly and as permanently as possible, and that while punishment is not by any means to be dispensed with, it is to be made subsidiary and subordinate to that function." [p 24 footnote ONE Ibid. p. 109.] Every effort is made to realize this goal. The quarters of the court are in the main courthouse of the city in a quiet, removed corner. The young offenders, their parents, and all others concerned with the case, are required to wait in a large room until the case is called. The keynote to the entire procedure is simplicity. The judge interviews the child alone, with sometimes the probation officer present. All newspaper men and persons not directly connected with the case are not allowed admittance, but exceptions are sometimes made in the case of officers of reform schools, officers of agencies interested primarily in children, and social workers. No more than two at a time are ever allowed to be present at the proceedings. p 25 When the case is called, the probation officer takes the child before the judge, who sits behind the desk on a low platform.While talking to the child, the judge carefully examines his general appearance and makeup, and although he holds the formal papers in his hand, he rarely reads the complaint. The child is not asked to plead either "guilty" or "not guilty." The procedure takes the form of an interview between the judge and the child. In every case the court tries to make clear that is will do everything possible to promote the interests of the child. If this interview has been a success, the parents, the police officer in charge of the case, and sometimes the aggrieved parties are brought in, and the case is stated to them. If the judge feels that the parents are to blame for the child's delinquency, the child and the police officer are sent out, and the judge admonishes the parents without running the risk of lowering them in the estimation of the child. The offender is then brought before the judge again, informed of the disposition of the case, and after friendly advice is dismissed. If, on the other hand,the judge can make no headway in the private interview with the child who absolutely denies any share in delinquency, the parents and officer are asked to return to the chamber, and the case is carried on in the usual way. The child has the right to be represented by counsel, bit it is generally understood that the judge's decision is the wisest for promoting the child's welfare. Probation is one of the most important features of the Boston Juvenile Court. The Massachusetts Commission on Probation defines probation as " a process by which the court, pending disposition of the case or under suspension of sentence, places a person convicted of crime n the care of a probation officer with a view to reformation". [p 25 Footnote ONE Massachusetts Commission on Probation "Probation Manual" (1916) p. 15] Probation may be granted to any person convicted of a crime, but the welfare of both the offender and society must be taken into consideration. p 26----Although the terms of probation are left to the discretion of the court, they generally include all or some of the following: The defendant shall 1. Comply with such orders as the court may make; 2.Report promptly to the probation officer as required; 3. Work regularly; 4. Keep good company and indulge in no bad habits' ; 5. Refrain from violating any law, statute, ordinance, by-law or regulation, the violation whereof is punishable; 6. Pay to the probation officer before 191 , $ as costs 7. Pay to the probation officer before 191 , $ as restitution or reparation. [Footnote ONE p 26 "ibid." p 17] The probation officer is required by law to investigate each case brought before the court. His report to the judge includes information regarding the family from which the child comes, the nature of his environment, personal history, school record, the gang to which he belongs,and especially the circumstances of the offense in question. When the court decides on an order of probation, the probation officer is required to return the child to court if, in his opinion, the child's conduct does not warrant further probation. In addition to probation and commitment in the disposition of cases, the court may fine the culprit although it is the aim today to discourage the fine of children under fourteen. Probation has many advantages over fining. After the offender has paid his fine, the court loses all control over him until a new charge can be brought against him. If, however, the child is on probation, he can be committed without proving a charge against him, and if his conduct is unsatisfactory, he can be surrendered to the court and committed at any time. In this way the court has a hold on the child for many months and in some cases for a number of years. Many offenders would immensely prefer to pay a fine and "be done with it all." The court also makes use of the suspended sentence. The term of suspension and the term of sentence imposed are to be distinguished. A child may be sentenced to a reformatory until he is twenty-one years of age and the sentence suspended for one year, and if, during the period of suspension, the offender's conduct is beyond reproach. the case may be dismissed. If the defendant violates any laws during the period of suspension, the court may revoke the suspension and inflict the penalty. Dispositions are made by the court according to the nature of the delinquency and the attendant circumstances. They vary from the task of copying the State regulations for several hours to commitment in an institution until majority has been reached. The aim in each case is to adjust the child to his social environment. The very fact that the child has appeared before the court is an indication to the judge that an adjustment is needed. When a girl is brought to the courthouse,she is immediately put under the care of a woman unless her parents arrive promptly and are thought by the court to be capable of taking care of her until the case is called. The judge never interviews a girl alone, and after the case has been heard, every effort is made to keep the girl away from the court house. The Massachusetts Commission on Probation asked the Legislature in 1923 to make a special appropriation to enable the Commission to make a study of the subsequent careers of persons who had been on probation. The Commission wanted to find out whether probation was justified by the conduct of the persons after the period of probation had expired and whether its efforts actually "returned people in the community with security to the community and with benefit to themselves". The Legislature granted the request and appropriated $4,000.00 for the investigation, [Footnote ONE p 28 National Probation Association "Proceedings 1923" (1924) pp. 252,253.] The study made included 312 juvenile delinquents, from several cities exclusive of Boston, who were placed on probation in the ordinary district courts in the first half of the year 1915. The majority (294) were boys ranging in age from eight to seventeen whose offenses consisted for the most part of larceny, breaking and entering, stubbornness, and assault and battery. [Footnote TWO "Ibid." "Proceedings 1924" (1924) p. 46] When placed on probation, the boys averaged fourteen years of age, and at the time of the investigation, they averaged twenty-three years of age. Over four-fifths (82.0 per cent) of the boys who were eligible for commitment at the time they were put on probation avoided that experience throughout the nine years since the offense was committed.The remaining fifth were committed to institutions. The importance of home conditions in relation to the efficacy of probation was made clear. Boys from homes with both parents present and no bad conditions failed to the extent of ten per cent, those from broken homes to the extent of thirty per cent, and those from homes where one or both parents drank, to the extent of forty per cent. As a result of this study, the Commission felt that probation had been more than justified as a method. The fact is that the big majority of young people for whom probation had been an alternative for commitment were never commited was accepted as clear evidence. Even in the cases where probation had seemingly failed, notably the cases of broken homes and other unfavorable home conditions, the Commission concluded that probation developed along lines to suit the special needs of these cases - rather than its abandonment- was the best course to take. THE ERA OF THE CLINICAL CRIMINOLOGIST Judge Baker realized the inadequacy of treatment based wholly on the observations of the judge and his probation officers. He voiced the need of a clinic to diagnose problem cases.After his death, his associates raised a fund to establish a memorial of his work, which is called the Judge Baker Foundation, and which provides the kind of scientific assistance to the Juvenile Court which Judge Baker advocated. The Foundation was organized in April, l917. Its function has been to cooperate not only with the court but with all agencies dealing with problem cases of children and their families to bring about a better understanding of the human material with which the juvenile court deals. Since its establishment, four thousand boys and girls have been studied. The majority of these children were referred to the Foundation by the Boston Juvenile Court. The rest came to its attention through the schools, hospitals, and child agencies. The information which has been gathered during the years of its operation has been published in the form of case records. Medical, social and psychological studies of the children are made under the supervision of Dr. William Healy. Probation officers, the field worker, and the workers of cooperating agencies are enlisted to carry on the social investigations of the heredity, home conditions, and school and street life of the individual in question. The psychological examination aims to bring to light the underlying causes of the child's delinquency as well as his special aptitudes and interests. The child's own story, including an analysis of his experiences, is appended to the results of the mental and physical examination and to the information which has been gathered to throw light on heredity and environment. At the staff conference which is held twice a week and which is attended by the doctors,the psychologists, and the social worker, the findings are related to get the interplay of causes. The best method of procedure is discussed, and the recommendations to be presented to the interested parties are drawn up. Each case is carefully followed up, and, if necessary, a re-study and new recommendations are made. The most recent development in the work of the Foundation is its emphasis on preventive work. It now studies the aptitudes and capabilities of presumptive criminals before they are allowed to join the ranks of the criminal class. The schools, hospitals, and social agencies, as well as the juvenile court, are sending children in increasing numbers to the Foundation for diagnosis with a view to vocational guidance, and recommenations are made as to the type of education and training advisable. Although it formerly dealt almost exclusively with children presenting behavior problems, it is now recruiting its clients to a high degree from the ranks of those who have committed no crime as defined by the law but who, without expert advice and training, would in all probability drift into vice sooner or later. Just as the problem of poverty in society has come to be regarded as not merely the relief of the poor already in existence, but the more fundamental problem of the distribution of the social income, so the basic problem of juvenile delinquency is seen to be not only the reformation of bad boys and girls,,but the larger and far more important undertaking of the social control of those factors in the environment which bring bad boys and girls into existence. One of the best services which the juvenile court and other institutions can render to-day is to make such a study of the individuals entrusted to their care as will bring to light the causes of delinquency and so make possible a program of prevention. The evolution of the care of the young offender in Massachusetts, and in the country as a whole,has been a slow process often characterized by failures but one in which a very real advance is also seen. Although many of our juvenile courts still fail to understand the individuals whose fate they must decide, the work of a few enlightened institutions makes the outlook for the future brighter.The beginnings,. as reflected in the corporal punishments of the seventeenth century, which aroused in many cases a desire for vengance on the part of the offender,have no counterpart today. The next step, that of housing youngsters in jails and houses of correction, too often resulted in a hatred for society and in a life of continued crime. The transition period brought with it reforming and educational measures, but since the seat of the difficulty was not sought after nor understood, the old urges recurred when the child was released from the reformatory, and very little from the point of view of preventing delinquency or checking recidivism was effected.The modern period, with its juvenile courts and diagnostic clinics, marks a real step forward in its effort to understand the motive and driving forces and to supply normal outlets for repressed wishes, but the children are reached by these institutions only after they have committed an offense which is punished by law.The most, consequently, that can be hoped from the juvenile court is the checking of recidivism. If the juvenile court forced back upon the preventive agencies all cases properly belonging to them and if the schools, churches,playgrounds, habit-clinics, placement, and relief organizations reched their maximum efficiency, there would be little work for the juvenile courts to do.The formula for the prevention of delinquency is the perfection of the agencies which come in contact with the child before he has committed his first offense. The juvenile courts of Massachusetts, and of other parts of the world, are at best only remedial instituiions, and as they are at present organized are not capable of combating delinquency at its source. The most that can be expected of them is the checking, and ultimately, the prevention of recidivism.Since the court can do very little to avert first offenses, and since it is only after the offense has been committed that the child appears before the court,there is very evident need of better work from the preventive institutions. All agencies whose primary function is to see that nothing goes wrong in the first place should be much more effective than the juvenile court in preventing crime because they are nearer the heart of the difficulty. Since, however, it is too much to hope for the present, at least, that complete successs will be attained in preventing delinquency through the agencies suggested above,the juvenile court will continue to hold an important place in effecting cures and in curbing recidivism. Because the juvenile court is the best agency at present for dealing with the problem of the young offender, every effort shoulod be expended to strengthen its work. An increase in the number of diagnostic clinics for problem cases which do not respond normally to the method of treatment prescribed by the court is strongly recommended. The establishment of such research institutions would be costly, it is true,but if the work were extended so as to include children who are potential criminals, and if they were set upon the highway of life capable of self-support and free from any history of delinquency, the investment would repay the public with a high rate of interest, and the juvenile courts would be near the realization of their maximum efficiency. The work of the juvenile courts throughout the state suffers because of the small number of probation officers attached to each court. The accepted maximum cases to be carried by one probation officer for careful work has been stated to be seventy-five cases per worker,The officers of the Boston Juvenile Court have carried from 125 to 150 cases. The juvenile court will defeat its own purpose if it does not have an adequate and well-trained force to carry out its policies. Further, the work of these courts could be reduced if something were done to prevent the overlapping of the work of visiting teachers, truant officers,social case vistors,and probation oofficers, which often results in neglect because the fields of each agency are not carefully defined.The placing agency shoud relieve the court of the necessity of placing children; the relief agency should take full responsibility for all dependent children,, and the school should take care of its truants.The probation officers would then be free to concentrate all their efforts on the rehabilitation of the delinquent child and not be forced to be "Jack of all trades". By limiting the field of their activities and by decreasing the number of their active cases, the officers could make more use of preventive measures. There is need at the present time in reform schools for teachers who understand the problems of offenders with abnormal mental and nervous habits, defective speech,and physical defects of all varieties, and who are suffering from conflicts which are not immediately apparent. We are continually losing sight of the fact that the chief function of the reformatories is to help children tide over the period of adolescent instability and to provide an environment which is educational and reformative. After the most marked cases of mental defect have ben sifted out and sent to the institutions for defective delinquents, then by means of intelligent vocational training, reformatories guided by the recommendations of state-supported diagnostic clinics might have a chance to return useful citizebs to society. Finally, further study and comparison of the experience of the juvenile courts is recommended.At present the successes and failures are not avaiable in such a way as to guide further procedure. The standardization of methods of record keeping is important. Only accurate, complete, and comparable statistics can be relied upon to make general trends clear and to point out the interplay of cause and result. THIRTY FOUR PAGES PLUS CONTENTS and BIBLIOGRAPHY end of text.
Chapter FOUR continued "Young Offender and the Criminal Law in Massachusetts" p 17-34
THESIS p17 a break was inevitable,and Wells, far ahead of his day in penological philosophy, resigned. The idea of juvenile delinquency as a problem in education was, however, destined to live.Simultaneously with Mr. Wells' retirement,an "association of gentlemen of great respectability" purchased Thompson's Island in Boston Harbor containing about twenty acres of land, where they erected a farm school for the education and reformation of boys who were exposed to extraordinary temptations and "who were in danger of becoming vicious and dangerous."Another charitable association, the boston Asylum, had been incorporated in 1814 to receive, instruct, and employ indigent boys of Boston, and in 1835 this institution was merged with the new Farm School on Thompson's Island under the title of the boston Asylum and Farm School for Indigent Boys. Since this establishment received only such boys as had not yet committed crime, its function was wholly preventive, and in fact, the number of inmates of the Boston House of Reformation was reduced as a result of the work of this institution. OTHER JUVENILE REFORM SCHOOLS The impetus for the establishment of the House of Reformation in boston in 1826, for the New York House of Refuge in 1824, and for the House of Refuge in Philadelphia in 1826, came from England. The agitation of the public conscience in Great Britain in the eighteen twenties resulted in the English Society for the Improvement of Prison Discipline and for the Reformation of Juvenile Delinquents.The spirit of this work spread both to continental Europe and America.After this, the movement for the reformation of young offenders lagged for about twenty years.Before 1850 there was established in addition to those mentioned above only the State Reform School of Massachusetts in 1848 [now the Lyman School] , the Western House of Refuge at Rochester, New York, in 1846, and a few privately supported homes, mostly for girls. About 1850 there was a renewal of interest, which led to the founding of many of the strongest schools, which have carried their work down to the present time.These reform schools include the Massachusetts Reformatiory [for boys], the Industrial School for Boys at Shirley, the Suffolk School [for Boys], the Lyman School [for boys], the Industrial School for Girls at Lancaster, and the Plummer Farm School at Salem. Industrial work was provided, with the idea of future use in the community, and education was stressed.These schools have largely taken the place of the walled prisons for juvenile delinquents. Today, whenever possible, they are located in the country, and wholesome outdoor life is relied upon as a factor in reformation. EARLY LEGISLATION RESTRICTED TO JUVENILES Laws with special reference to young offenders were enacted in Massachusetts before similar legislation was passed in other states. By an act of 1847 the first state reformatory in the United States was established in Westboro, Massachusetts (now the Lyman School for boys). In 1870 it was provided that in the county of Suffolk (mainly Boston) all children under seventeen years of age who were brought before the court should "have the complaints against them heard and determined by themselves, separate from the general and ordinary criminal business." (UNDERLINED) This measure was the first provision of its kind passed in the United States. The first legislative action in the United States with regard to the appointment of a judicial official for the trial of children appeared in 1872 when the executive was authorized to "designate and commission such number of justices of the peace as the public interest and convenience may require to try juvenile offenders."The provision was repealed in 1877.Perhaps the first statutory use of the term "session for juvenile offenders" appeared in the act of 1877 which provided that juvenile offenders should be tried apart from the trial of other criminal cases, at suitable times.These hearings were to be known as the session for juvenile offenders, and a separate record and docket were to be kept. Massachusetts boasts of the fact that it is known as "the home of probation." In 1870 a visiting agent of the board of state charities, whose function corresponds to that of the probation officer today, was authorized. This agent was to be notified of complaints pending against children under seventeen years of age, was to investigate their cases, attend their trials,and protect their interests in general.. He stood between the child and the reformatory, and his recommendation might result in placing the child in a house with a private family or in any other disposal which seemed to him desirable.Thus what was in effect juvenile probation was frequently used in the period from 1870 to 1880 in Massachusetts.Its good results were, in fact,responsible for the probation system for adults, which was created by a law in 1878, and 1880, when paid probation officers were authorized throughout the state.The probation law of 1891 provided a paid probation officer for each municipal,police, or district court.Under these circumstances, the former provision for the primary intervention in juvenile cases by the agent of the state board of charity proved cumbrous and was superseded by the provisions of the Delinquent Children Act of 1906. The basis of the present court procedure so far as young offenders are concerned is to be found in an "Act Relative to Delinquent Children" which was passed on May 24th, 1906. [Footnote ONE Massachusetts Acts and Resolves,1906. Chapter 413.] Definitions indicating changed points of view are contained in this act. A delinquent is defined in this statute as anyone between seven and seventeen years of age who has violated a city ordinance or town by-law or committed an offense not punishable by death or by imprisonment for life.A wayward child is designated as one between seven and seventeen who habitually associates with the vicious or immoral or who is growing up in circumstances inducing an immoral,vicious, or criminal life. It is emphasized that the law should be liberally construed and that the chiuldren should be treated not as criominals but as in need of aid,encouragement, and guidance.It was made the aim of the court to approximate the care which the children should have received from the parents. The proceedings against children under this act are not to be regarded as criminal in character.No child under fourteen may be committed to a lockup either in default of bail or fine or upon conviction of any offense not punishable by death or by imprisonment for life. The parent or guardian is to be summoned to the hearing, and the child may appeal to the Superior Court. This act stresses the importance of having the session for children at a separate time and when practicable in a separate place from that of criminal trials and forbids any minor to attend a hearing unless he is needed. It further stipulates that it is the duty of the probation officer to investigate each case of waywardness or delinquency and to report on the character, record, and environment of his charge. He is required to attend the trial, to be ready to assist the court with information, and at the end of the probation period to report the conduct of trhe child under his supervision.A delinquent child's case may be placed on file, or the child may be placed under the care of a probation officer.If he proves unmanageable, he is to be committed until twenty-one years of age, if a boy under fifteen, to the Lyman School for Boys, and if a girl under seventeen, to the State Industrial School for Girls. It is the privilege of the court to commit any delinquent child to any institution excepting a jail or house of correction. If it is found that the parent is in any way responsible for the juvenile delinquency, he may be fined not more thasn $50.00 or imprisoned not more than six months. In an "Act Authorizing Probation Officers for Children" in 1908 [Footnote ONE Massachusetts Acts and Resolves ; 1908. Chapter 637.] each inferior court whose district has a population of 30,000 to 125,000 is authorized to appoint a paid probation officer for wayward and delinquent children. The Massachusetts Commission on Probation was created by law in the same year. It has supervision of the probation officers in all the courts of the state. The Commission consists of five members appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court. Its powers consist of prescribing records to be kept by the probation officers and to require the reports which it deems necessary.Beyond these items, its powers are only advisory,but it is charged with the responsibility of coordinating the work and promoting an exchange of information between officers. [Footnote TWO National Probation Association, Proceedings 1923 (underlined), (1924) p. 208] The juvenile court movement is one of the most important developments in the history of penology. It affords marked contrasts with the earlier methodd of identical treatment for both young and old offenders. The first juvenile court was established in Chicago in 1899. After that date others followed rapidly. Within ten years, twenty-two states had passed similar laws to that of Illinois, and by 1920 all but three states - Maine, Wyoming, and Connecticut had done so. In these three states some features of the method of procedure used in the juvenile court were to be found. The Boston Juvenile Court is the only Juvenile Court in Massachusetts which was established by a special law and which has "independent jurisdiction." [p 22 Footnote One Evelina Belden, (underlined) "Couts in the United States hearing children's cases." United States Children's Bureau. Publication No. 65 (1920) p. 76] The remaining courts hearing children's cases come under the police, district, or municipal court systems. In 1918 [Footnote TWOibid. p. 28] there were seventy-one courts in the state which were reported as hearing children's cases. Two-fifths of these had a significant amount "of specialization and organization for work with children." The others were "general courts" and did not report specially organized juvenile work. In the latter cases, the judges devoted most of their time to other court duties. All of the courts made use of probation. The act "to establish the Boston Juvenile Court" was approved on June 15, 1906 [Footnote THREE Massachusetts Acts and Resolves. 1906. CHAPTER 489.] It provides for one justice and two special justices to be appointed by the executive. All complaints which relate to children under seventeen are to be transferred p.23 to this court, and so far as possible the court is ordered to hear all cases in chambers. All unnecessary persons are to be excluded. The Boston Juvenile Court was largely determined by the personality of its presideing officer. Mr. Roy H. Cushman, for eight years a probation officer of the court, has portrayed the character of Harvey Humphrey Baker, the court's first judge. He has made it evident that the court WAS Judge Baker and attributes the high rank of the boston court to the "work and eminent service" of its first magistrate. When the Governor appointed Mr. Baker judge, there was open speculation as to whether he would be a successful worker with boys because it was assumed that such a position required a man who was informal, able to meet boys on their own level, and a man whose boyhood was somewhat similar to that of the children's whom he aimed to guide. Judge Baker was a bachelor, a man who had led a life free from care in the matter of earning a living, and was a citizen carefully trained in self discipline.He proved to be very successful, and his success has been attributed to "his sense of fairness, his untiring devotion to duty, his great patience, his firmness when occasion demanded, his judicial turn of mind, his profound legal sense and knowledge of the law, his keen intelligence, his tactfulness - but above all to the beauty, simplicity, and genuineness of his personal character. Such a nature as his conquered by force of its sincerity. All who came in contact with him were enobled." [p 23 FOOTNOTE ONE Judge Baker Foundation, "underlined HARVEY HUMPHREY BAKER: MAN AND JUDGE." Publication No. One (1920) p 4. ]. Judge Baker took into account the problems of the parents as well as those of the child and invariably insisted upon seeing at least one of the parents of every child who came before him. If it were inconvenient for the parents to appear in the daytime, he arranged to see them in the evening.Before Judge Baker accepted the judgeship. he traveled about the country and visited many of the already existing juvenile courts and institutions for delinquent children and industrial schools. He witnessed the operation of methods which were proving successful and availed himself of every opportunity to talk with any expert whose advice might be valuable to him. When he committed a child, he knew the institution to which he was sending him, sometimes visited him at the institution, and even watched his career while there and after parole Since its establishment the Boston Juvenile Court has been "administered on the assumption that the fundamental function of a juvenile court is to put each child who comes before it in a normal relation to society as promptly and as permanently as possible, and that while punishment is not by any means to be dispensed with, it is to be made subsidiary and subordinate to that function." [p 24 footnote ONE Ibid. p. 109.] Every effort is made to realize this goal. The quarters of the court are in the main courthouse of the city in a quiet, removed corner. The young offenders, their parents, and all others concerned with the case, are required to wait in a large room until the case is called. The keynote to the entire procedure is simplicity. The judge interviews the child alone, with sometimes the probation officer present. All newspaper men and persons not directly connected with the case are not allowed admittance, but exceptions are sometimes made in the case of officers of reform schools, officers of agencies interested primarily in children, and social workers. No more than two at a time are ever allowed to be present at the proceedings. p 25 When the case is called, the probation officer takes the child before the judge, who sits behind the desk on a low platform.While talking to the child, the judge carefully examines his general appearance and makeup, and although he holds the formal papers in his hand, he rarely reads the complaint. The child is not asked to plead either "guilty" or "not guilty." The procedure takes the form of an interview between the judge and the child. In every case the court tries to make clear that is will do everything possible to promote the interests of the child. If this interview has been a success, the parents, the police officer in charge of the case, and sometimes the aggrieved parties are brought in, and the case is stated to them. If the judge feels that the parents are to blame for the child's delinquency, the child and the police officer are sent out, and the judge admonishes the parents without running the risk of lowering them in the estimation of the child. The offender is then brought before the judge again, informed of the disposition of the case, and after friendly advice is dismissed. If, on the other hand,the judge can make no headway in the private interview with the child who absolutely denies any share in delinquency, the parents and officer are asked to return to the chamber, and the case is carried on in the usual way. The child has the right to be represented by counsel, bit it is generally understood that the judge's decision is the wisest for promoting the child's welfare. Probation is one of the most important features of the Boston Juvenile Court. The Massachusetts Commission on Probation defines probation as " a process by which the court, pending disposition of the case or under suspension of sentence, places a person convicted of crime n the care of a probation officer with a view to reformation". [p 25 Footnote ONE Massachusetts Commission on Probation "Probation Manual" (1916) p. 15] Probation may be granted to any person convicted of a crime, but the welfare of both the offender and society must be taken into consideration. p 26----Although the terms of probation are left to the discretion of the court, they generally include all or some of the following: The defendant shall 1. Comply with such orders as the court may make; 2.Report promptly to the probation officer as required; 3. Work regularly; 4. Keep good company and indulge in no bad habits' ; 5. Refrain from violating any law, statute, ordinance, by-law or regulation, the violation whereof is punishable; 6. Pay to the probation officer before 191 , $ as costs 7. Pay to the probation officer before 191 , $ as restitution or reparation. [Footnote ONE p 26 "ibid." p 17] The probation officer is required by law to investigate each case brought before the court. His report to the judge includes information regarding the family from which the child comes, the nature of his environment, personal history, school record, the gang to which he belongs,and especially the circumstances of the offense in question. When the court decides on an order of probation, the probation officer is required to return the child to court if, in his opinion, the child's conduct does not warrant further probation. In addition to probation and commitment in the disposition of cases, the court may fine the culprit although it is the aim today to discourage the fine of children under fourteen. Probation has many advantages over fining. After the offender has paid his fine, the court loses all control over him until a new charge can be brought against him. If, however, the child is on probation, he can be committed without proving a charge against him, and if his conduct is unsatisfactory, he can be surrendered to the court and committed at any time. In this way the court has a hold on the child for many months and in some cases for a number of years. Many offenders would immensely prefer to pay a fine and "be done with it all." The court also makes use of the suspended sentence. The term of suspension and the term of sentence imposed are to be distinguished. A child may be sentenced to a reformatory until he is twenty-one years of age and the sentence suspended for one year, and if, during the period of suspension, the offender's conduct is beyond reproach. the case may be dismissed. If the defendant violates any laws during the period of suspension, the court may revoke the suspension and inflict the penalty. Dispositions are made by the court according to the nature of the delinquency and the attendant circumstances. They vary from the task of copying the State regulations for several hours to commitment in an institution until majority has been reached. The aim in each case is to adjust the child to his social environment. The very fact that the child has appeared before the court is an indication to the judge that an adjustment is needed. When a girl is brought to the courthouse,she is immediately put under the care of a woman unless her parents arrive promptly and are thought by the court to be capable of taking care of her until the case is called. The judge never interviews a girl alone, and after the case has been heard, every effort is made to keep the girl away from the court house. The Massachusetts Commission on Probation asked the Legislature in 1923 to make a special appropriation to enable the Commission to make a study of the subsequent careers of persons who had been on probation. The Commission wanted to find out whether probation was justified by the conduct of the persons after the period of probation had expired and whether its efforts actually "returned people in the community with security to the community and with benefit to themselves". The Legislature granted the request and appropriated $4,000.00 for the investigation, [Footnote ONE p 28 National Probation Association "Proceedings 1923" (1924) pp. 252,253.] The study made included 312 juvenile delinquents, from several cities exclusive of Boston, who were placed on probation in the ordinary district courts in the first half of the year 1915. The majority (294) were boys ranging in age from eight to seventeen whose offenses consisted for the most part of larceny, breaking and entering, stubbornness, and assault and battery. [Footnote TWO "Ibid." "Proceedings 1924" (1924) p. 46] When placed on probation, the boys averaged fourteen years of age, and at the time of the investigation, they averaged twenty-three years of age. Over four-fifths (82.0 per cent) of the boys who were eligible for commitment at the time they were put on probation avoided that experience throughout the nine years since the offense was committed.The remaining fifth were committed to institutions. The importance of home conditions in relation to the efficacy of probation was made clear. Boys from homes with both parents present and no bad conditions failed to the extent of ten per cent, those from broken homes to the extent of thirty per cent, and those from homes where one or both parents drank, to the extent of forty per cent. As a result of this study, the Commission felt that probation had been more than justified as a method. The fact is that the big majority of young people for whom probation had been an alternative for commitment were never commited was accepted as clear evidence. Even in the cases where probation had seemingly failed, notably the cases of broken homes and other unfavorable home conditions, the Commission concluded that probation developed along lines to suit the special needs of these cases - rather than its abandonment- was the best course to take. THE ERA OF THE CLINICAL CRIMINOLOGIST Judge Baker realized the inadequacy of treatment based wholly on the observations of the judge and his probation officers. He voiced the need of a clinic to diagnose problem cases.After his death, his associates raised a fund to establish a memorial of his work, which is called the Judge Baker Foundation, and which provides the kind of scientific assistance to the Juvenile Court which Judge Baker advocated. The Foundation was organized in April, l917. Its function has been to cooperate not only with the court but with all agencies dealing with problem cases of children and their families to bring about a better understanding of the human material with which the juvenile court deals. Since its establishment, four thousand boys and girls have been studied. The majority of these children were referred to the Foundation by the Boston Juvenile Court. The rest came to its attention through the schools, hospitals, and child agencies. The information which has been gathered during the years of its operation has been published in the form of case records. Medical, social and psychological studies of the children are made under the supervision of Dr. William Healy. Probation officers, the field worker, and the workers of cooperating agencies are enlisted to carry on the social investigations of the heredity, home conditions, and school and street life of the individual in question. The psychological examination aims to bring to light the underlying causes of the child's delinquency as well as his special aptitudes and interests. The child's own story, including an analysis of his experiences, is appended to the results of the mental and physical examination and to the information which has been gathered to throw light on heredity and environment. At the staff conference which is held twice a week and which is attended by the doctors,the psychologists, and the social worker, the findings are related to get the interplay of causes. The best method of procedure is discussed, and the recommendations to be presented to the interested parties are drawn up. Each case is carefully followed up, and, if necessary, a re-study and new recommendations are made. The most recent development in the work of the Foundation is its emphasis on preventive work. It now studies the aptitudes and capabilities of presumptive criminals before they are allowed to join the ranks of the criminal class. The schools, hospitals, and social agencies, as well as the juvenile court, are sending children in increasing numbers to the Foundation for diagnosis with a view to vocational guidance, and recommenations are made as to the type of education and training advisable. Although it formerly dealt almost exclusively with children presenting behavior problems, it is now recruiting its clients to a high degree from the ranks of those who have committed no crime as defined by the law but who, without expert advice and training, would in all probability drift into vice sooner or later. Just as the problem of poverty in society has come to be regarded as not merely the relief of the poor already in existence, but the more fundamental problem of the distribution of the social income, so the basic problem of juvenile delinquency is seen to be not only the reformation of bad boys and girls,,but the larger and far more important undertaking of the social control of those factors in the environment which bring bad boys and girls into existence. One of the best services which the juvenile court and other institutions can render to-day is to make such a study of the individuals entrusted to their care as will bring to light the causes of delinquency and so make possible a program of prevention. The evolution of the care of the young offender in Massachusetts, and in the country as a whole,has been a slow process often characterized by failures but one in which a very real advance is also seen. Although many of our juvenile courts still fail to understand the individuals whose fate they must decide, the work of a few enlightened institutions makes the outlook for the future brighter.The beginnings,. as reflected in the corporal punishments of the seventeenth century, which aroused in many cases a desire for vengance on the part of the offender,have no counterpart today. The next step, that of housing youngsters in jails and houses of correction, too often resulted in a hatred for society and in a life of continued crime. The transition period brought with it reforming and educational measures, but since the seat of the difficulty was not sought after nor understood, the old urges recurred when the child was released from the reformatory, and very little from the point of view of preventing delinquency or checking recidivism was effected.The modern period, with its juvenile courts and diagnostic clinics, marks a real step forward in its effort to understand the motive and driving forces and to supply normal outlets for repressed wishes, but the children are reached by these institutions only after they have committed an offense which is punished by law.The most, consequently, that can be hoped from the juvenile court is the checking of recidivism. If the juvenile court forced back upon the preventive agencies all cases properly belonging to them and if the schools, churches,playgrounds, habit-clinics, placement, and relief organizations reched their maximum efficiency, there would be little work for the juvenile courts to do.The formula for the prevention of delinquency is the perfection of the agencies which come in contact with the child before he has committed his first offense. The juvenile courts of Massachusetts, and of other parts of the world, are at best only remedial instituiions, and as they are at present organized are not capable of combating delinquency at its source. The most that can be expected of them is the checking, and ultimately, the prevention of recidivism.Since the court can do very little to avert first offenses, and since it is only after the offense has been committed that the child appears before the court,there is very evident need of better work from the preventive institutions. All agencies whose primary function is to see that nothing goes wrong in the first place should be much more effective than the juvenile court in preventing crime because they are nearer the heart of the difficulty. Since, however, it is too much to hope for the present, at least, that complete successs will be attained in preventing delinquency through the agencies suggested above,the juvenile court will continue to hold an important place in effecting cures and in curbing recidivism. Because the juvenile court is the best agency at present for dealing with the problem of the young offender, every effort shoulod be expended to strengthen its work. An increase in the number of diagnostic clinics for problem cases which do not respond normally to the method of treatment prescribed by the court is strongly recommended. The establishment of such research institutions would be costly, it is true,but if the work were extended so as to include children who are potential criminals, and if they were set upon the highway of life capable of self-support and free from any history of delinquency, the investment would repay the public with a high rate of interest, and the juvenile courts would be near the realization of their maximum efficiency. The work of the juvenile courts throughout the state suffers because of the small number of probation officers attached to each court. The accepted maximum cases to be carried by one probation officer for careful work has been stated to be seventy-five cases per worker,The officers of the Boston Juvenile Court have carried from 125 to 150 cases. The juvenile court will defeat its own purpose if it does not have an adequate and well-trained force to carry out its policies. Further, the work of these courts could be reduced if something were done to prevent the overlapping of the work of visiting teachers, truant officers,social case vistors,and probation oofficers, which often results in neglect because the fields of each agency are not carefully defined.The placing agency shoud relieve the court of the necessity of placing children; the relief agency should take full responsibility for all dependent children,, and the school should take care of its truants.The probation officers would then be free to concentrate all their efforts on the rehabilitation of the delinquent child and not be forced to be "Jack of all trades". By limiting the field of their activities and by decreasing the number of their active cases, the officers could make more use of preventive measures. There is need at the present time in reform schools for teachers who understand the problems of offenders with abnormal mental and nervous habits, defective speech,and physical defects of all varieties, and who are suffering from conflicts which are not immediately apparent. We are continually losing sight of the fact that the chief function of the reformatories is to help children tide over the period of adolescent instability and to provide an environment which is educational and reformative. After the most marked cases of mental defect have ben sifted out and sent to the institutions for defective delinquents, then by means of intelligent vocational training, reformatories guided by the recommendations of state-supported diagnostic clinics might have a chance to return useful citizebs to society. Finally, further study and comparison of the experience of the juvenile courts is recommended.At present the successes and failures are not avaiable in such a way as to guide further procedure. The standardization of methods of record keeping is important. Only accurate, complete, and comparable statistics can be relied upon to make general trends clear and to point out the interplay of cause and result. THIRTY FOUR PAGES PLUS CONTENTS and BIBLIOGRAPHY end of text.
No comments:
Post a Comment