Among the multiple issues raised dealing with the future of the juvenile process, legal issues appear to predominate. These issues have taken on new momentum since the Gault case, but have become of increasing concern for at least the last decade (In re Gault, 1967). Such issues as a timely notice for a hearing, content of such notices, the vagueness and in-definiteness of statutes pertaining to pleadings, right to counsel, right to confrontation of witnesses, and the privilege against self-incrimination have been guaranteed to juveniles under due process. In connection with the question of this paper, it should be noted that Gault applied only to proceedings in which the determination of delinquency could result in a commitment to an institution in which the freedom of the juvenile would thus be curtailed. Additional legal issues can be raised as well, focused on the various stages of apprehension, intake, adjudication, and sentencing. Such matters in the juvenile process as discovery, right to a speedy trial, public proceedings, jury trial, and change of venue, are some related due process issues which still remain basically unsettled in different jurisdictions.

Two separate questions must be answered when a child is charged with delinquency. The first is whether he has committed the alleged act. If the child is found to be delinquent, the second question is what action the court should take to correct the child's delinquency. Both questions may be considered in a single hearing or they may be separated and determined in two hearings.

Connecticut presents a perfect case study of differential correctional treatment for young male and female offenders. The state controls two juvenile correctional institutions: the Long Lane School (LLS) in Middletown for girls and the Connecticut School for Boys (CSB) in Meriden. Both facilities have existed practically side-by-side for over a century under state management, yet they have evolved in markedly different ways. The boys' school has been in the throes of constant turmoil and consequently under severe public scrutiny throughout most of its operation. The administrators of the “farm for girls,” on the other hand, have run a very tight ship and take pride in their undisrupted tradition. As a result, the Connecticut School for Boys has bungled its way (albeit ineptly) into the twentieth century while the Long Lane School still prepares women to re-enter the community as nineteenth century domestics.

It is the purpose of this paper to examine, briefly, the Crime Commission's proposals for the establishment of youth services bureaus. The aim of this examination is to lay the foundation for a discussion of the nature and role of these bureaus, the type of cases with which they should deal, the bureaus' significance in the pattern of juvenile services, and some of the problems which must be considered by those concerned with the implementation of the scheme.

The rhetoric of the Juvenile Court Movement has emphasized the individualized, non-criminal handling of youths who commit delinquent acts. While the procedures for handling youth in the juvenile court were decriminalized (which basically means that constitutional guidelines applicable to criminal trials were disregarded), the alleged delinquent acts have remained, for the most part criminalized. That is, delinquent acts are defined by the law as basically criminal acts committed by youth. A partial exception to this perspective is the juvenile status offenses. For the most part these acts (truancy, curfew violation, ungovernable, etc.) are viewed as “pre-delinquent,” i.e., pre-criminal kinds of behavior.

The interplay between professionals and clients has been examined in a number of settings (Etzioni, 1964: 87-89; Becker, 1952; Willie, 1960; Schur, 1968; Myers and Roberts, 1959) and the impact of laymen on professional behavior is well-known to the sociologists (Friedson, 1960). In this research report these insights are applied to police-citizen interaction in an effort to explain the dynamics of discretionary decisions by police officers and the role such discretion plays in their quest to attain higher professional stature. Specific attention will be paid to variations in the willingness of policemen to develop and utilize informers or “stool pigeons.”