Evening star., 1935-02-18
CONTROL OF COURT
FOR SOCIETY
Advocates of New Law
Would Extend Jurisdic-
ton Of Juveniles.


ton Of Juveniles.
This is the second of three articles
discussing local opinion concerning
dmenddtory Juvenile Court legtsld-
tion-phy it is favored and DhV
opposed.
concerned with Juvenile Court law |
! needs of the District Is the group !
committed to the theory Of social re-
sponsibility-the theory that society |
should not only be protected but that |
it should take hand in shaping the
lives and conduct Of its members.
This group contends, that properly. !
this responsibility begins when its sub
jects are children. The vehicle upon |
which 1t rides Is court set-up en- !
bracing Jurisdiction over children in |
any degree delinquent, neglected or
dependent, and over adults who may |
be guilty of contributing to these cir
cumStances.
Such a court would have no trials,
no juries. no attorneys, no conNc-
tions-instead 1t would have informal |
hearings and conferences between the !
children and adults involved and the |
investigating officers who are servig |
the court. Primarily it would not be |
concerned over how to punish child |
who stole some groceries-rather 1t |
| would be concerned with why the deed !
Tr, hi
would be empowered to examine the |
| life history and circumstances Of the |
subject, to find out, for instance, II |
the child stole groceries because its |
| mother refused to give it enough |
to eat.
Power Of Discipline.
And If such proves to be the case,
the court would be empowered to order |
| the parents to change their method Of |
bringing up the child. If disciplinary
action for the child was deemed neces- |
sary, the court would have the same +,
! power to impose it that parents ordi- |
narily assume in care of their own |
youngsters. And If parents are not |
believed capable or able to supply the |
| proper care and supervision Of their !
childrens the court could fill this func- |
ton in any manner deemed most |
feasible. Confinement In an institu- |
ton, however, would be directed only |
In extreme cases.
Such law as this is now being |
prepared by local group, prepara-
tory to introduction in Congress dur |
| ing the present session.
In its preliminary draft. this pro-
posed law states its purpose and basic |
principle as follows:
THE purpose Of this act is to secure |;
for each child under its jurisdiction |
such care, guidance and control, |
preferably in his own home, as will |
serve the childs welfare and the best |
interests of the State; and when such |
child is removed from his own fam /
lily, to secure for him custody, care |
and discipline as nearly as possible !
equivalent to that which should have |
been given by his parents.
Wards of State,
'The principle Is hereby recognized |
that children under the jurisdiction Of |
the court are wards of the State, sub |
ject to the discipline and entitled to !
the protection of the State, which may |
intervene to safeguard them from |
neglect or injury and to enforce the |
legal obligations due to them and |
from them"
AS to the key circumstance Of juris- |
diction, the proposed law would give |
the court extremely wide jurisdiction |
through its definitions of delinquent,
neglected and dependent" In addi- |
ton, it provides that ANY person may,
and any peace officer shall, give to |
the court information in his posses
sion that child is within the provi- |
sions of this act. Thereupon the |
court shall make preliminary inquiry
to determine whether the interests OF |
the public or Of the child require that |
further action be taken. Whenever |
practicable, such inquiry shall include |
a preliminary investigation of the
home and environmental situation of |
the child"
Court hearings would be conducted |
In informal manner, thus wiping out |
the entire legal procedure, without a
jury and with the public excluded
Adults coming within Jurisdiction,
however, would retain their rights to |
COUNSEL, jury Lrlal, etc.
Three broad alternatives Of DISPOSE
ton would be available to the court;
first, to place the child under proba-
ton or supervision in own home or
in custody Of relative "or other fit |
person; second. to commit the child |
to the Board of Public Welfare, the |
National Training School or to "a
qualified suitable private institution or |
agency willing and able to assume the |
education, care and maintenance Of |
such child without expense to the |
public: third, such further disposi-
ton as the court may deem to be |
best.
Wide Powers Criticized.
Naturally enough, such an extreme |
proposal has encountered criticism,
principal point of attack being the !
autocratic powers which it would be-
stow upon the judge of the court. In
this point would seem to rest both the
strength and the weakness Of the pro-
posal; namely, the quality Of person.
mel. Selection of a properly qualified
and high-minded Judge and Of SINH
larly equipped probation and investi-
eating officers would be necessary,
proponents Of the plan admit. Oppo-
nents, more cynical and fearful Of the
usual political manipulation, declare
the chances of such selections too slim
to make 1t safe to endow q single
individual with such power.
In a second direction, critics attack
the privilege of "meddling" into family
lives, declare it of no business to
society as long as no prohibited act
actually is committed. In rebuttal,
proponents cite the powers Of health
officers to place family in quaran-
tine and of other public officials to
guide family conduct. Establishment
of such a court, they claim, is merely
another step in the progress of civil
ization and the development of
Well-or0ered society.