Evening star., 1937-11-30
Juvenile Court Bill.

When Senate and House conferees
meet on the Districts proposed new
Juvenile Court law 1t is to be hoped they
will try to adjust their differences over
terminology in . manner that will not
sacrifice or destroy the basic objective
of the bill.
That basic purpose is to lift this chill
dren's tribunal out Of the rigid realm of
criminal court, and make it a place
where the best interests of the child
could be weighed and determined, with
proper safeguards, but without all of the
legal machinery necessary in adult GRIM
inal proceedings. In other words, the
aim would be to save the child for future
citizenship, rather than mere conviction
and punishment for some legal offense.
Those who have studied the subject
believe the House measure substantially
accomplished this desirable goal, in ac-
cordance with modern practice elsewhere.
The Senate, however, made fifteen
changes in the bill before passing it and
1t is this list of amendments that now
awaits deliberation in conference.
Nearly all important legislation is the
result Of compromise when the two
branches of Congress hold conflicting
views, and, undoubtedly, some of the
Senate amendments could be worked
out on basis that would preserve the
essential features of the improved prin-
ciples OF dealing with Juvenile delin-
quency. There are several Senate amend
ments, however, that would tend to
nullify the original measure if retained
in their present form.
For example, one Senate proviso states
that nothing in the act shall authorize
removal of child from custody of his
parents unless his welfare "and" the
safety and protection of the public cam
not otherwise be adequately safeguarded.
1t has been pointed out that cases would
arise in which the child's welfare would
require change of custody, but where
protection of the public would not be
involved. 1t should be possible to arrive
at an acceptable modification of this
amendment, such as the use of "or" in
place of and" And there should be no
doubt as to the authority OF the court to
determine when the child's or the pub
lies welfare is involved. Under the Sen
ate version, there is some doubt.
Again, there is the question of Jury
trial. Both houses made provision for
1t, but while the House text allows a Jury
on demand, the Senate provided that
the court can hear a case directly only
when the child, parent or guardian has
expressly waived" the calling Of a jury.
Another essential point is whether an
officer OF the court or the corporation
counsels Office should pass on prelim-
mary data concerning childrens cases.
The Senate bill allows the corporation
counsel to determine whether the court
should take formal Jurisdiction, after
court officer has made a preliminary
inquiry, thus getting back into the GRIM
inal procedure which it is the intent
OF the act to avoid.
1t is desirable also that the final form
OF the bill should adequately equip the
court to deal with the problem of adults
contributing to the delinquency of chill
dren, an important matter which the
Senate bill apparently overlooks.
Washington has Jagged behind other
jurisdictions in the revision and improve
ment OF its Juvenile Court law. And it
would be unfortunate If, after the pro-
posed revision has reached the thresh-
old OF enactment, its effectiveness should
be weakened by changes in its vital
structure.