Evening star., 1935-02-17

discussing local OplHlOH COHCeTH-
ting dn1enddtory Juvenile Court
ieqislation-,phy it Is favored and
tDhy opposed.
Social responsibility VS.. individual
esponsibility-within these conflict
ing conceptions are embraced many |
of the principles upon which present
dav laws and rules of court procedure
are based.
In the latter, particularly, is found
the motivating theory for criminal
law and criminal court procedure
the fiat theory that persons who COM
nit prohibited acts should be punisheo' |
that all persons are subject to ludg-
ment by the same standards; that
society has no responsibility or right
to guide the lives of individuals. but
that society must be protected. In |
other words, individuals have the
right to grow up as they please, or as
their parents please; and the rlsnI TO
continue life as they please-untll
this pleasure involves an of1enSe
against society. When 1t does, they
are subject to punishment. Thelr
protection against persecution rests IN
a system of legal checks and balances,
rights stated by the Constitution ana
by statute.
Social Theory.
In the theory of social responsibility
Is found a much broader conception
of what society may and should 90
with the individual. In the applica-
ton Of this theory. society does not
stand aloof until offended against;
n takes unto itself the right to enter
the private lives of individuals at the
first indication that the individual is
not leading well-ordered existence.
1t embraces punishment however,
only as a final recourse-only after II
has extended advice, guidance and
supervision and these have failed.
Most pointed local instance Of the
conflict of these theories is found in
the quiet but determined controversy
In progress over the Juvenile Court
eet-up in the District.
In its present form, the District
Juvenile Court follows the original
pattern OF what such court should
be-namely.. court of law in which
OneHQeTS SCIOdiAi u6S "SN
be tried for their offenses. The Of
fenses parallel those for which adults
are brought into police courts. the
procedure may be identical and the
defendant children are accorded the
same legal rights as are available 10
adults in court proceedings. They may
have counsel they may plead guilty
or otherwise, they may request trial
by jury, may appeal decisions and
in all the ways familiar to the legal
profession may seek to protect them
selves against just or unjust punish
ment by the court.
Based Upon Law.
In keeping, also. with the original
conception Of Juvenile Court, the
local court employs a wider use OF
the probation system than does the
adult court; 1t commits its convicted
offenders to institutions for children
where supposedly they will not come
In contact with habitual criminals.
Its cases are prepared and referred to
it by the Office of the corporation
counsel-are shaped In conformance
to good legal procedure and based
upon an alleged violation OF law or
statute Followed strictly, the Juve-
nile Court law does not give the court
the privilege of baSing its decision
partly upon the home circumstances
of the child, does not admit as evi-
dence a youngsters general conduct
or attitude.
For this system Of dealing with Ju-
veniles there are many defenders.
Members OF the legal fraternity, for
instance uphold it as an approved
vehicle for law enforcement, for pro-
lection Of society and for protection
of the individual defendants rights.
The special needs of children. they
point out, are met in the broader ap-
plication of the probation principle, in
the use of special institutions for
committal and in the practice eXclud-
Ing the public from trials.
Properly administered. they claim,
the District Juvenile Court law is fully
adequate for the purposes for which
such a law is intended. Theirs Is the
doctrine of individual responsibility,
in which each person may 60 his own
way until he commits prohibited
act-young or old-then he must be
punished. The degree of punish
ment, Of course, is not the same for
young and old, and this discretion
ary margin Is deemed sufficient to
care for the juvenile problem.
The Other Side.
On the other side of the argument,
however, are those who aSSail the
present District law most bitterly.
Administered as 1t must be, they in
sist, the present court set-up auto
matically places all delinquent chill
dren in the classification Of GRIM
inals. 1t provides for their arrest,
trial and conviction, just as If they
were adult criminals, and makes no
real provision for study Of case his
tories. It prevents, for instance, a
Juvenile Court judge from inquiring
Into the home life and surroundings
o. a youngster and finding that 1t
really was the fault of the child's
parents that he became an habitual
stealer of groceries. 1t requires the
court to confine itself to the question
Of whether or not the defendant really
stole the groceries. If he did, then
he should be punished, the law says,
although the punishment may be
merely placing the defendant on pro-
baticn.
Followers of the theory of social
responsibility, they offer in the place
Of the present law new one which
would make the court social agency
empowered to become foster par
ent' to any child whose family cir
cumstances are considered lily suited
for the development of a useful citi-
zen. They would give it jurisdiction
far beyond that Of the present law,
would make it a powerful agency Of
reform, but from it they would at
temtt to remove the criminal stigma
and the recourse to punishment as q
means of beneflting society.
fSome of the criticism for and
against this ne1p juvenile court
conception 1pill be oiDer in sec