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

10 J. Juv. L. 193 (1986-1989)
Juvenile Extradition: Denial of Due Process

handle is hein.journals/jjuvl10 and id is 199 raw text is: JUVENILE EXTRADITION: DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS I. JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN CALIFORNIA California became the seventh state to enact a juvenile court act in 1903 which provided for separate court jurisdiction over dependent, ne- glected and delinquent children under the age of 16 years. The age limit was raised to 18 years in 1909 when a separate juvenile court was estab- lished. Exclusive jurisdiction over minors was granted in 1913 and con- current jurisdiction of criminal courts was established for those between the ages of 18 and 21 years. The establishment of the juvenile court system was based upon the belief that early intervention, coupled with a system providing for treat- ment rather than punishment, would save errant children from a life of crime. No distinction was made between the status of the offender be- cause all children were believed to be in need of rehabilitation by the juvenile court. The format of the juvenile court system was highly infor- mal in comparison with the adult criminal system, lacking in many of the procedural safeguards of due process accorded the adult counterpart. These safeguards were considered inappropriate because the primary concern was rehabilitation rather than punishment. The juvenile system underwent its first major revision in 45 years in 1961. Many procedural innovations were added to the rights of minors under the 1961 Juvenile Court Act,1 including the right of a minor or parent to be represented by retained counsel, the right of an indigent minor to be represented by court-appointed counsel when based on alle- gations of felony misconduct, the right to adequate notice of the charges, the right to a prompt detention hearing, the right to confidentiality of hearings, the right to a review hearing in all dependency and neglect cases, and the requirement that an order changing a disposition by re- moving a minor from parents' custody or commitment to the Youth Au- thority be preceded by a noticed hearing. These modifications were made in the belief that the quality of rehabilitative services would be in- creased while maintaining the informality of the juvenile courts. 1. See former Welf & Inst. Code §§ 632-634, 676, 729 and 777 (1961).

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