The Problem of Juvenile Delinquency and Changes in Middle Class Attitudes and Practices in The Nineteenth Century - Coursework Example

Juvenile Delinquency in the 19th Century Juvenile delinquency is an important which has been at the forefront of scholarly attention in recent times. High school shootings, such as the infamous event in Columbine amongst others, have brought the issue of juvenile delinquency to the forefront of media attention. Despite the fact that there is renewed interest in the subject, serious considerations of juvenile delinquency have been evolving since the middle of the 19th century. Accordingly, since the onset of Victorian era ideals surrounding the ability of society to handle juveniles who are behaving in a delinquent manner, much attention has been given to the issues surrounding youth crime, youth violence and overall juvenile delinquent behavior. Seeking to address the issues associated with juvenile delinquency in the 19th century with respect to how juvenile delinquent behavior was understood with reference to the norms and expectations of the era, the following hopes to provide a thorough and concise analysis of perceptions of juvenile delinquency before, as well as after, the 19th century. This essay will ask, to what extent was the problem of ‘juvenile delinquency’ less of a real crime problem and more a reflection of changes in middle class attitudes and practices in the nineteenth century? To begin, this essay turns to an analysis of the models of criminality and delinquency which influenced both society and jurisprudence during the early half of the 19th century. The overriding influence of psychiatry during this era as well as ideas about the criminal mind significantly influenced the treatment of juvenile delinquents prior to the reforms of the 19th century. Following this, we turn to an overview of antecedents to reform in the United Kingdom and the fundamental changes undertaken during this period. We then explore the changes with respect to the United States and conclude with an overview of the issues discussed in this analysis of juvenile delinquency and the reform movement during the middle half of the 19th century (Lawrence, 2007; Rouček, 1958). Models of Criminality and Delinquency What are the different models for crime during the early part of the 19th century? During this period there were a variety of models of the causes of criminal behavior as well as delinquency; these models were applicable to both young offenders as well as adults. Accordingly, in 1835 a psychiatrist by the name of Prichard introduced the concept of “moral insanity” and this referred to deviations from normative behavior and was inherently hinged upon the notion that crime represents a moral affront to wider society and that there was a psychiatric basis to criminal behavior. During this period, there was an overriding concern with the morality of actions and the supposed immorality of juvenile delinquents and adult offenders. Other scholars such as Morel explained criminal behavior through the lens of degeneracy, and the inherent degenerate behavior of the criminal mind. During this era, scholar Lombroso established his now infamous classification of criminals which focused on physical features such as a small skull, heightened cheekbones, and a retreating forehead. These features were supposed to emphasize the subhuman characteristics of the real would criminal. Accordingly during this era, the juvenile delinquent as well as the adult criminal were seen as having unique physical characteristics and were classified in a subhuman context. What is important to know during this period is that both the young offenders and adult criminals were perceived in the same light: they were morally depraved; they engaged in degenerate behavior, their physical characteristics were subhuman and they could not be rehabilitated. During the early part of the 19th century psychology reigned supreme with respect to criminal behavior and the theories aimed at understanding the criminal mind. By the middle half of the 19th century and towards the 20th century there was a fundamental transformation in the theories surrounding criminal behavior, both with respect to youth criminals and adult terminals, and sociological explanations for cruel behavior started to gain precedence. During this early period, however psychological explanations significantly influenced the criminal justice field and as well as peoples perceptions of juvenile delinquent behavior (Hirschi, 2002; Binder, 1998). Antecedents to Reform Changes in the treatment of young offenders began in earnest during the 19th century. In addition to changes in the treatment of young offenders, there were also changes in the perceptions of juvenile crime and juvenile delinquency. Although youth crime in a modern context is topical, the issues surrounding youth crime were brought to the fore during the height of the 19th century. Accordingly, youth crime prior the middle 19th century was perceived much differently than it is today. As a result the middle of the 19th century can be seen by many as an important turning point in the historiography of juvenile crime. During the 19th century a series of reforms were undertaken which substantially changed peoples perceptions of youth violence and youth crime. Accordingly, this was a pivotal period of change in the perception as well as the treatment of juvenile thunders and juvenile criminals. Prior to the 19th century there was little intervention on behalf of authorities in juvenile crime; following a series of reforms which were undertaken in Britain during the 19th century the foundations for the current juvenile justice system which pervades the modern Western world was established. Prior to these reforms juveniles were punished and often treated like adults. Following the reforms the foundations for the modern juvenile justice system were laid and the perceptions of young people who committed crimes were fundamentally changed and differed significantly from those from the past. During this period of reform of the system, emphasis was placed upon the separation of youth and adult criminals as well as the perception that young people could be reformed. Additionally, there arose the belief that punishment need not be the overriding societal concern with respect to young offenders and juvenile delinquency. During the middle of the 19th century, an understanding of the environmental circumstances and the social situations which were part of the existence of young criminals were brought to the fore and were seen as by many as important and relevant preconditions for the lives of young criminals. Social forces, as well as the important issues surrounding parental authority or lack thereof, played a very important role in reforming the criminal justice system with respect to young people (Binder, 1998; Williams and McGee, 1994). Youth Justice Reform in the United States The history of youth justice and juvenile delinquency in the United States underwent a phenomenal transformation in 1838 when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court set an important precedent with respect to juveniles, juvenile crime and the role of the state. Accordingly in this landmark ruling the Pennsylvania Supreme Court established that the state had the right to take charge of the lives of children, particularly those who engaged in criminal behavior, and place them in state institutions for a variety of offenses. These offenses included “incorrigibility”, “moral depravity” and “viciousness”, and the evolution of US jurisprudence during this period ensured that young people were privy to the laws of land, albeit with a different set of punishments as well as a different set of criminal laws which applied to them. From this perspective than US juvenile court jurisprudence evolved during the 19th century. The belief that there should be new laws which would apply exclusively to children is a concept which developed from English common law and the notion of parens patriae (Binder, 1998; . This concept, parens patriae, is predicated upon the belief that the state had the ultimate authority and responsibility for the welfare of young people in the country. Accordingly this concept allowed for the intervention of the state in matters which affected children, thus overriding the rights and former responsibilities of parents to manage their children. Following the landmark decision in Pennsylvania in 1838, the first juvenile court in the United States was established in Chicago at the turn-of-the-century in 1899. While much American jurisprudence during this period was based on the notion of retribution for crimes committed, the first youth criminal court in Chicago operated under the assumption that while punishment was important, rehabilitation and rehabilitative means were essential in order to alter the behavior of the juvenile offender. It is important to also note that the particular youth courts at the time different from traditional courts not only in the sense that rehabilitation was perhaps one of the more important overriding goals but that also because to show protections which existed for regular offenders did not necessarily apply to young offenders. Thus, juvenile delinquents were seen as potential words of the state and their rights differed significantly from adult criminals in traditional court of law. In addition, the notion of quid pro quo in the juvenile court system remained a feature of this court system until 1967 when the US Supreme Court overturned the concept of quid pro quo and emphatically argued that children are subject to the same constitutional protections as adult offenders (Binder, 1998; Schmalleger, 2004). What is there important with respect to the transformation of juvenile delinquency during the middle of the 19th century in the United States is that there was an important question raised regarding who is responsible for disciplining children as well as what role can stay play in reforming and rehabilitating young offenders. Prior to the middle of the 19th century the responsibility for children rested solely on the shoulders of parents. Following precedent set in the United Kingdom and the important Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in 1838, the responsibility for young people who behaved in a delinquent manner was shifted from the parental authorities to the state. Who should be responsible for the behavior of young people in society? Would it be the parents who were responsible for raising children? Or would it be the state or federal authorities who are responsible for ensuring law and order and the orderly nature of society? These questions were raised during the middle of the 19th century and effectively changed youth justice jurisprudence both in the United States and abroad. The dominance of the state and rehabilitating young people effectively changed the roles between parents and children and the overarching goal of the state to correct and transform juvenile delinquent behavior represents an important milestone in the multiple roles of the state in managing an orderly society (Binder, 1998; Rutter, 1998). Concluding Remarks During the middle half of the 19th century, questions of juvenile delinquency where a reflection of the fundamental changes taking place in both American and British society. Through the establishment of precedent in United Kingdom and legislation enacted in the United States through the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, it was established that the state had an important role to play in ensuring that juveniles conformed to the norms and expectations of society but also that the state could intervene and sidestep the parents when it came to providing rehabilitation to young offenders. While juvenile delinquency was perceived by many to be a real issue and an important social concern, the issues surrounding youth criminal behavior were actually heavily influenced by psychiatry, psychology and what we see now as unscientific ideas about criminal behavior. Thus questions of moral insanity, the general behavior and quality scientific analyses of the size of craniums as well hold hosts of other supposedly criminal characteristics, heavily influenced the youth criminal justice field during this era. During the middle of the 19th century the state asserted its role in separating young criminals from the wider criminal population as well as taking the responsibility to rehabilitate them. A fundamental change during this period was the understanding that young people deserve special protection within a legal framework as well as the belief that their behavior could be changed through rehabilitation. From this perspective the state has a central role to play in ensuring that young people conform to the norms and expectations of society and that the state has the right if not the duty to intervene and reform the behavior of young people who behave in a delinquent manner. The changes which are undertaken during the period have fundamentally transformed youth justice and Western jurisprudence. The ramifications of the reforms undertaken during the middle half of the 19th century continue to resonate today. REFERENCES Binder, A (1998). “Juvenile Delinquency, ”Annual Review of Psychology 39:253-82. Hirschi, T. (2002). Causes of delinquency. Transaction Publishers, New York:. Lawrence, Richard. (2007). “Special Theme Issue: School Crime and Juvenile Justice,” Criminal Justice Review 32: 337-338. Rouček, J. S. (1958). Juvenile delinquency. Ayer Publishing, New York. Rutter, M., Hagell A, & Giller, H, 1998. Antisocial Behaviour by Young People Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Schmalleger, F. (2004). Canadian Criminology Today. Pearson, Toronto. Williams, Sheila & McGee, Rob. (1994). “Attainment and Juvenile Delinquency,”, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 35(3): 441-459. Read More