Illinois Juvenile Court Case Study
The Illinois Juvenile Court Act of 1899 created a juvenile court that had jurisdiction over children charged with crimes. But, in addition, the new juvenile court was given jurisdiction over: Any child who for any reason is destitute or homeless or abandoned; or dependent on the public for support; or has not proper parental care or guardianship; or who habitually begs or receives alms; or who is living in any house of ill fame or with any vicious or disreputable person; or whose home by reason of neglect, cruelty, or depravity on the part of its parents, guardian or any other person in whose care it may be, is an unfit place for such a child; and any child under the age of 8 who is found peddling or selling any article or singing or
playing a musical instrument upon the street or giving any public entertainment (Oliver and Hilgenberg, 2006, p. 205).
This new act bringing into existence a separate court for children and youth also defined a rehabilitative purpose for a court – rather than the traditional punishment purposes. Furthermore, the Illinois act established that juvenile court records would be confidential so as to minimize stigma, and it required that juveniles be separated from adults when placed in the same institution. Finally, it was a unique law that provided for the informality of juvenile court procedures.
After 1899, the new juvenile court system blossomed. By 1912, 22 states had passed legislation similar to the Illinois Juvenile Court Act of 1899. And, by 1925, that number would increase to 46 states and the District of Columbia. So, within 26 years, the juvenile court system had become a fixed and wholly separate part of the court system in America. However, this new system was not without its problems. For instance, in 1905, the case of Commonwealth v. Fischer (213 Pa. 48) was brought before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court specifically to discuss one question: What due process protections were allowed juveniles?
The case revolved around 14-year-old Frank Fischer, who was placed in the Philadelphia House of Refuge after being convicted of larceny. After he was sentenced, his father objected to his son’s sentence, pointing out that his son received a sentence more severe than if he had been convicted and sentenced in an adult criminal court.
playing a musical instrument upon the street or giving any public entertainment (Oliver and Hilgenberg, 2006, p. 205).
This new act bringing into existence a separate court for children and youth also defined a rehabilitative purpose for a court – rather than the traditional punishment purposes. Furthermore, the Illinois act established that juvenile court records would be confidential so as to minimize stigma, and it required that juveniles be separated from adults when placed in the same institution. Finally, it was a unique law that provided for the informality of juvenile court procedures.
After 1899, the new juvenile court system blossomed. By 1912, 22 states had passed legislation similar to the Illinois Juvenile Court Act of 1899. And, by 1925, that number would increase to 46 states and the District of Columbia. So, within 26 years, the juvenile court system had become a fixed and wholly separate part of the court system in America. However, this new system was not without its problems. For instance, in 1905, the case of Commonwealth v. Fischer (213 Pa. 48) was brought before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court specifically to discuss one question: What due process protections were allowed juveniles?
The case revolved around 14-year-old Frank Fischer, who was placed in the Philadelphia House of Refuge after being convicted of larceny. After he was sentenced, his father objected to his son’s sentence, pointing out that his son received a sentence more severe than if he had been convicted and sentenced in an adult criminal court.