UPI Study › Courses › Criminology › Free lessons › Lesson 21.2 Free with a free account
Juvenile Detention Centers: Purposes, Characteristics, and Legal Frameworks
Criminology · Chapter 21: The Death Penalty, Juvenile Justice, and Correctional ReformSection 21.2 · lesson 89 of 91video coming soon
← The Death Penalty: Constitutional Debates, Historical Shifts, and Contemporary ArgumentsNext lesson: Correctional Reform Movements and Their Impact on Modern Policy →
In this lesson
A separate system, its constitutional limits, and the evidence on detention.
- Describe the structure and purpose of the juvenile justice system.
- Explain the legal framework governing juvenile detention and transfer.
- Identify the developmental reasoning behind limits on juvenile sentencing.
- Assess the evidence on juvenile detention and its alternatives.
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,509 words). Read along, or search it.
Opening Question
Why Treat Young People Differently
Devon is an intake officer. A young person's case lands on his desk, and whatever he decides will shape what happens next. Why does the system treat young people differently at all? This lesson turns to young people, and the separate system built to handle them. We start with why the juvenile justice system was created apart from adult courts.
Roadmap
Topics and Cautions Ahead
Then we see how the Supreme Court brought due process protections into juvenile proceedings. We walk through the five stages of a modern juvenile case, and the special category of status offenses. We examine how cases are transferred to adult court, and what the evidence says about it. Then we look at detention, the developmental research that reshaped juvenile sentencing law, and the alternatives. Throughout, we stay with legal standards and evidence, not descriptions of individual cases. And we are careful to say exactly what the research does and does not show.
Founding Rationale
Parens Patriae and Protective Purpose
The juvenile justice system began as a deliberately separate institution from the adult criminal system. Its founding rationale was protection and rehabilitation, not punishment. That rationale rests on a doctrine called parens patriae. Under it, the state acts as a substitute guardian for a young person's welfare. So intervention aims at the young person's best interest, rather than punishing a legal wrong as adult courts do.
Distinct Procedure
Different Words and Closed Proceedings
This rationale produced a distinctive procedure. It used different words: adjudication in place of conviction, and disposition in place of sentencing. Proceedings were closed rather than public, to protect a young person's future. And originally, many adversarial protections available in adult court were absent. The theory was that a protective proceeding, unlike a punitive one, did not need them, since it aimed only to help.
Landmark Cases
Kent and Gault Bring Due Process
That theory did not survive constitutional scrutiny. In Kent versus United States, decided in nineteen sixty-six, the Court addressed transfer to adult court. Before a juvenile court waives its jurisdiction, there must be a hearing. Counsel must have access to the records the court relies on, and the court must state its reasons. A year later, in nineteen sixty-seven, came In re Gault. It held that a young person facing possible confinement is entitled to notice of the charges, and the right to counsel. The youth also has the right to confront witnesses, and the privilege against self-incrimination. The reasoning is the key point: the loss of liberty in a juvenile proceeding is functionally comparable to that in an adult one. A protective label does not change what is at stake.
Five Stages
Discretion at Every Case Stage
Let us walk through the five stages of a modern juvenile case. Each stage involves discretion, exercised by a different decision-maker. Intake is the initial screening of a referral, usually by an intake officer. The diversion decision, made by an intake officer or prosecutor, can route the case away from formal proceedings entirely. The detention decision, made by a judge or hearing officer, determines whether the youth is held pending further proceedings. Adjudication is the juvenile equivalent of a trial, deciding whether the allegations are established. Disposition is the juvenile equivalent of sentencing, deciding the outcome after adjudication. Both are handled by a juvenile court judge. And a diversion opportunity exists at every stage, not just at the start.
Status Offenses
Conduct Unlawful Only for Minors
A status offense is conduct prohibited only because the person is a minor. Truancy and running away are classic examples. The same conduct by an adult would not be unlawful at all. Federal law treats these offenses differently. The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, first enacted in nineteen seventy-four, attaches a deinstitutionalization requirement. States receiving certain federal funding must substantially limit secure confinement, for youth whose only involvement is a status offense. The judgment behind this is straightforward. Status conduct does not warrant the same response as delinquent conduct, which would be criminal if an adult did it.
Transfer Mechanisms
Four Routes to Adult Court
Several mechanisms move a juvenile case into adult court. Judicial waiver requires a juvenile court judge to decide, typically after a hearing, that transfer is appropriate. Prosecutorial discretion, in some states, lets a prosecutor file certain cases directly in adult court, without a judge. Statutory exclusion removes certain offenses or ages from juvenile court automatically, by law. And once an adult, always an adult provisions keep a youth previously tried as an adult in adult court for later offenses.
Policy and Evidence
Transfer Linked to Higher Reoffending
Policy has moved in both directions. Many states expanded transfer eligibility during a period of heightened public concern about youth violence. Many have since narrowed it again, as the evidence became better known. That evidence is striking. Research comparing transferred and non-transferred youth with comparable cases finds transfer associated with higher, not lower, subsequent offending.
Comparison
Less Individualized, Stronger Criticism
Let us compare the four transfer mechanisms. In judicial waiver, a juvenile court judge weighs case-specific factors at a hearing. Outcomes vary, but the hearing provides individualized review. In prosecutorial discretion, the prosecutor decides, with less structured review than judicial waiver. Comparative research associates this route with higher subsequent offending. In statutory exclusion, the legislature decides in advance, by category of offense or age, applied automatically. Its frequent criticism is that it removes individualized consideration entirely. Once an adult, always an adult is automatic after a prior transfer, and applies to any later offense. It extends adult court jurisdiction with no new individualized review. Notice the pattern: the less individualized the mechanism, the stronger the criticism it draws.
Detention Purposes
Two Justifications for Pre-Adjudication Detention
Pre-adjudication detention is officially justified by two purposes. One is ensuring the young person appears at future proceedings. The other is preventing harm before the case is resolved. Research using comparable cases finds detention associated with worse later outcomes, even after controlling for the offense charged.
Quick Check
Does Detention Cause Worse Outcomes
Quick check, before we go further. Does that finding prove that detention itself causes the worse outcomes? Pause, and decide. Not fully, and a causal caution is essential here. Detained youth may differ from others in ways the available data cannot fully capture. So the research cannot fully establish that detention itself causes the worse outcomes.
Facility Conditions
Separating Juveniles from Adult Inmates
Conditions in juvenile facilities fall under a framework distinct in some respects from the adult system. It includes federal requirements to separate juveniles from adult inmates by sight and sound, in most circumstances.
Developmental Research
Adolescent Brains and Sentencing Decisions
Research on adolescent decision-making reshaped juvenile sentencing law. It finds that brain regions associated with impulse control and long-term judgment keep developing into early adulthood. That reasoning supported a sequence of Supreme Court decisions. In Roper versus Simmons, in two thousand five, the Court barred the death penalty for offenders under eighteen at the time of the offense. In Graham versus Florida, in two thousand ten, it barred life without parole for a juvenile convicted of a non-homicide offense. In Miller versus Alabama, in two thousand twelve, it barred mandatory life without parole for any juvenile offender. A mandatory sentence is one imposed automatically, without considering the individual's youth. Miller did not ban the sentence outright, but it requires individualized consideration of youth first. Each holding is cited here for its legal reasoning only.
Alternatives
Community Options Instead of Detention
What about alternatives to secure detention? Evidence-based options include structured supervision in the community, and evening or after-school reporting programs. For many young people assessed at lower risk, these have shown outcomes comparable to, or better than, secure detention. They also avoid the disruption detention causes to schooling, family contact, and employment.
Disparity
Racial Disparity Across Decision Points
Disparity is the other major concern. Data collected under federal disproportionate minority contact requirements show racial disparity at multiple decision points. It appears from the initial referral, through detention, to disposition. Since a twenty eighteen reauthorization, federal law frames this requirement as identifying and reducing racial and ethnic disparities. These findings must be read alongside measurement and structural explanations, such as differential enforcement exposure and socioeconomic confounding. They are never attributable to any inherent property of a racial or ethnic group.
Case Revisited
Devon Weighs Detention Against Alternatives
Back to Devon, our intake officer. Devon is reviewing a case that technically meets the formal criteria for detention. But the young person has stable home circumstances. The available information suggests detention is unlikely to serve either of its purposes. It is not needed to ensure appearance, and it is not needed to prevent harm. Structured community supervision is available as an alternative. Devon's task is to weigh the formal criteria against those alternatives. Each option is tested against the two purposes detention is supposed to serve. And he documents the reasoning behind whichever decision is made, so it can be reviewed.
Practice
Classify Offenses on Your Own
Now try this on your own: practice classifying offenses as delinquency, a status offense, or transfer eligible. Repeated truancy is a status offense, while an offense excluded from juvenile court by statute is transfer eligible.
Reverse Problem
Where Disparity Grew Between Stages
Finally, the reverse problem. A jurisdiction's racial disparity is small at referral, but larger by the time of the detention decision. Where did the disparity most likely grow? Pause, and decide. The disparity most likely grew at the stages between them, such as intake screening or the detention decision itself.
Key Takeaways
Pulling the Lesson Together
Let's pull it together. The system began on protection, and Kent and Gault added due process. A case has five stages, each with discretion. Less individualized transfer draws stronger criticism. And developmental research reshaped juvenile sentencing.
About Criminology at UPI Study
Criminology (Criminology 150) is a self-paced online course of 91 video lessons in 21 chapters, from classical criminology and crime data to theories of crime, victims, policing, courts and corrections. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus Every course with PRO →
Why take it here
Why students take Criminology with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Criminology carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About Juvenile Detention Centers: Purposes, Characteristics, and Legal Frameworks
Why does the juvenile justice system exist separately from adult criminal courts?
What did Kent v. United States and In re Gault change about juvenile court?
Does research show that juvenile detention causes worse outcomes for youth?
Why did the Supreme Court limit harsh sentences for juveniles in Roper, Graham, and Miller?
About the Criminology course
How many college credits is Criminology?
How much does Criminology cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Criminology take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Criminology.
91 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →