Preventive Detention of Juveniles: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Juvenile Justice of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-eighth Congress, Second Session, Oversight Hearing to Review the Recent Supreme Court Decision Relating to the Pretrial Detention of Juvenile Offenders, June 19, 1984 |
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
adjudicated adult jails Amicus Curiae ARLEN SPECTER arrest believe best interests charged CHARLES MCC Chief Counsel child CONGRESS LIBRARY CONGRESS OF CONGRESS CONGRESS THE LIBR CONGRESS THE LIBRARY consent decree Court of Appeals criminal courts Dauphin County detained detention facilities detention of juveniles detention practices district attorney due process fact Family Court Act family court judges Gault going hearing home environment incarceration initial detention decision JEREMIAH DENTON Judge DRISCOLL juve juvenile court juvenile delinquency juvenile detention center juvenile justice system Juvenile Law juvenile offenders Juvenile Probation Office Juvenile Rights Division juvenile's Legal Aid Society legislatures LENORE GITTIS LEWIS LIBRARY OF CONGRES LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Martin decision parens patriae parents Pennsylvania Philadelphia pretrial detention preventive detention prior Professor Guggenheim protection punishment released return date robbery Senator SPECTER serious risk specific standards SUBCOMMITTEE ON JUVENILE Supreme Court tion trial U.S. SENATE venile WARNER York's youngsters
Popular passages
Page 29 - ... unless his detention or care is required to protect the person or property of others or of the child or because the child may abscond or be removed from the jurisdiction of the court or because he has no parent, guardian, or custodian or other person able to provide supervision and care for him and return him to the court when required, or an order for his detention or shelter care has been made by the court pursuant to this Act.
Page 29 - Criteria for detaining children "(a) A child taken into custody shall not be placed in detention or shelter care prior to a factfinding hearing or a dispositional hearing unless it appears that detention or shelter care is required — "(1) to protect the person or property of others or of the child...
Page 7 - ... neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor the Bill of Rights is for adults alone.
Page 50 - For the same reasons that our society does not hold juveniles to an adult standard of responsibility for their conduct, our society may also conclude that there is a greater likelihood that a juvenile charged with delinquency, if released, will commit another criminal act than that an adult charged with crime will do so. To the extent that self-restraint may be expected to constrain adults, it may not be expected to operate with equal force as to juveniles. Because of the possibility of juvenile...
Page 8 - In this respect, the juvenile's liberty interest may, in appropriate circumstances, be subordinated to the State's parens patriae interest in preserving and promoting the welfare of the child.
Page 16 - Only in occasional cases does incarceration of a juvenile pending his trial serve to prevent a crime of violence and thereby significantly promote the public interest. Such an infrequent and haphazard gain is insufficient to justify curtailment of the liberty interests of all the presumptively innocent juveniles who would have obeyed the law pending their trials had they been given the chance.
Page 48 - Court to order detention of a juvenile if he finds "there is a substantial probability that [the juvenile] will not appear in court on the return date." Section 320.5(3)(b), the provision at issue in these cases, authorizes detention if the judge finds "there is a serious risk [the juvenile] may before the return date commit an act which if committed by an adult would constitute a crime."4 [467 US 283] There are few limitations on § 320.5(3Xb).
Page 49 - to a very real extent Family Court must exercise a substitute parental control for which there can be no particularized criteria." There is also no reason, we should add, for a federal court to assume that a state court judge will not strive to apply state law as conscientiously as possible. Sumner v. Mata, 449 US 539, 549 (1981).
Page 12 - Attorney-in-Charge of the Juvenile Rights Division of The Legal Aid Society of New York City.
Page 37 - I do not know how much you want me to go into the detailed activities of RID, what it has been doing, and what it is proposed to do.