In general, a juvenile is not entitled to a jury trial in juvenile court. Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that jury use would infringe the confidentiality of juvenile court proceedings. It also found that proceedings before juvenile courts differ from proceedings before ordinary criminal courts because they are not really adversarial. Juvenile courts are designed to rehabilitate a minor rather than punish him, and a formal adversarial procedure could hinder this objective. However, the Supreme Court has not prohibited states from conducting jury trials in cases involving minors. Some States offer this right in cases involving severe penalties. Drei Entscheidungen der Oberster Gerichtshof in der zweite Hälfte des 20. In the nineteenth century, procedural formalities were more numerous in juvenile courts, but other decisions retained differences between juvenile courts and criminal courts. In 1966, in Kent v. In the United States, the court found that Morris Kent was denied due process when his case was sent back to a criminal court without a hearing, without giving his lawyer access to the social information on which the juvenile judge based his decision. It is important to remember that the United States has at least 51 different juvenile justice systems, not one. Each state and the District of Columbia have its own laws that govern its juvenile criminal law. The operation of juvenile courts may vary from county to county and municipality to municipality within a state.

The federal government is responsible for a small number of young people, for example: for those who commit crimes on Indian reserves or in national parks, and it has its own laws to regulate youth in its system. States that receive money under the Federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act must meet certain requirements, such as not placing juveniles with adults in detention or detention centers, but it is state law that governs the structure of juvenile courts and juvenile detention centers. When this report refers to juvenile justice, it refers to a general framework that is more or less representative of what is happening in a particular State. Not surprisingly, Sullivan`s work and other recent ethnographies on poverty and crime indicate that the material gains associated with its integration into the drug economy are generally temporary. For example, Sullivan (1989) argues in Getting Paid that while participation in the underground economy may bring temporary material gains, it becomes a constraint over time and those involved “age and accept to exit juvenile delinquency. low wages, unstable jobs” (Sullivan, 1989: 250). Joan Moore offers a similar conclusion in Going Down to the Barrio when she states that “the culture of mistrust condemns young people to jobs at best, just like their fathers” and ends up serving to “keep working-class children in the working class” (Moore, 1991: 42). Felix Padilla echoes this theme in his ethnography of The Gang as an American Enterprise, noting that “instead of acting as a progressive and liberating agent capable of transforming and correcting the economic situation of youth, the gang has helped to strengthen it” (Padilla, 1992:163). In each of these ethnographies, and in the related studies already mentioned, it is the integration into criminal networks, including the juvenile and criminal justice system, that seals the economic fate of these young people. In an analysis of judicial transfer decisions in Boston, Detroit, Newark and Phoenix from 1981 to 1984, Fagan et al. (1987a) found that age at the time of the offence, age of the offence and seriousness of the offence were the factors that most strongly influenced the decisions of juvenile judges to refer a case to criminal court.

The cases most likely to be missed involved older minors accused of serious violent crimes, primarily murder. Poulos and Orchowsky (1994) examined the factors that led to judicial restitution between 1988 and 1990 in the state. A three-year follow-up of young offenders randomly assigned to regular or intensive parole in Contra Costa County, California, found little difference in recidivism (measured by re-arrest, court appearances, incarceration and self-reported offences) between the two groups (Fagan & Reinarman, 1991). Although the intensive program was designed to include more therapeutic programs than regular probation, the main difference in practice was the number of contacts between probation officers and adolescents – weekly for intensive care and monthly for regular probation. Initially, the program was for both violent and violent offenders, but many non-violent and less serious offenders ended up in the program. The authors concluded that regular parole is sufficient for most juvenile offenders and that intensive care should be reserved for serious and violent offenders who have failed under normal probation. While there can be no doubt about the original laudable purpose of juvenile courts, studies and criticisms in recent years have raised serious questions as to whether the actual results measure the theoretical objective well enough to make immunity from access to constitutional guarantees tolerable for adults. Indeed, there is evidence that there may be reason to fear that the child will receive the worst of both worlds, that is, that he or she will not receive the protection afforded to adults, nor the care and regenerative treatment that children have sought (Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 555-556). the magnitude, systemic impact, costs and cost-effectiveness of the various possible decisions in juvenile cases; Once a minor is detained, it appears that the police are now less informal with them than in the past. About 22 per cent of juveniles detained by the police received informal treatment within the department and were released in 1998, compared with 45 per cent in 1970 (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1999); 69 per cent of juveniles in police custody in 1998 ended up in a juvenile court and 7 per cent in a criminal court (adult court).

Although studies have focused on relapse rates of treatment programs, there appear to be few credible studies on the effects of residential policies, such as television, recreational privilege, or the use of segregation or prisons that occur in adolescent education or reform schools. Many juvenile justice systems use a behaviour change strategy that links rewards (e.g. buying special food, watching TV, using the library, playing sports games) to compliance. These systems also usually combine sanctions with misconduct. Although designed to teach inmates better behaviour, empirical evidence has shown that the strategy can backfire on certain populations (Deci, 1971; Kruglanski et al., 1971; Lepper et al., 1997). Because punishments used in correctional facilities include physical abuse, incarceration, segregation and various forms of deprivation, some youth may learn that violence is appropriate to conform.