About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

6 Race & Just. 3 (2016)

handle is hein.journals/rcjstc6 and id is 1 raw text is: Editorial Race and justice 2016, Vol. 6(I) 3-4 Editor's lur tion © The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10. 1177/2153368715620877 raj.sagepub.com Kareem L. Jordan (Co-Editor in Chief) OSAGE University of Massachusetts Lowell The juvenile system was designed to be an alternative to the traditional criminal justice system because youth were thought to be less culpable than their adult counterparts. Therefore, treating them similarly to adults in terms of responsibility and punishment was not believed to be in juveniles' best interests. In the late 19th century, a group of women, known as the child savers, helped lead the fight to establish a system solely for juveniles (Platt, 1969; Bernard & Kurlychek, 2010). The child savers believed that juveniles should not be housed with adults nor did they approve of the poor conditions of the juvenile court's institutional predecessor (Houses of Refuge). The women were successful in their plight and the first juvenile court was created in 1899 in Cook County, IL. Over the next several decades, juvenile courts were created in virtually every state. While this is one interpretation of the juvenile court's creation, there is another perspective. The child savers were largely Caucasian women but also very protective of their lifestyle (Ward, 2012). Mass immigration during that time period and antiminority sentiments led some to believe that in order to protect their lifestyles, the child savers wanted to create a system to control immigrants and minorities. Therefore, while some believe the child savers had benevolent motives, others are not convinced (Chavez-Garcia, 2007). Additionally, when the juvenile court was first created, approximately 90% of Black youth still lived in southern states due to the postslavery era (Ward, 2012). Although juvenile courts were being created in many northern states (Myers, 2005), most Black juveniles did not have access to this new justice system. Therefore, some have questioned whether the juvenile court was even designed for the benefit of underrepresented racial/ethnic groups. The current issue of Race and Justice includes three highly relevant scholarly articles to explore these concerns. The first article is by Michael Leiber, Jennifer Peck, and Maude Beaudry-Cyr. In this study, the authors use the symbolic threat hypothesis to examine whether age mitigates the severity of court outcomes for youth in the juvenile justice system. They also examine the effect of the combination of race, gender, and age on court outcomes. The juvenile justice system was designed to be distinct from the adult system. Some extra-legal factors (e.g., school, living situation, etc.) can actually influence decision making because they help provide a more complete picture of juveniles, which ultimately helps court workers decide on what is in those youths' best interests. However, race, gender, and age were not intended to influence decision making. Leiber, Peck, and Beaudry-Cyr examine this issue.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most