FOREIGN

According to Zack Payne (2017) One of the major issues facing the country is juvenile
criminality. Federal, state, and municipal government officials as well as the general people are
all concerned about it. With the sharp increase in juvenile violence that started in the middle of
the 1980s and peaked in the early 1990s, this issue has recently risen. Although it appears that
youth crime rates have decreased since the mid-1990s, the issue has not been resolved by this
decline. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, when juvenile crime rates were stable or slightly
declining and federal reformers were promoting preventative and less punishing approaches,
many states started adopting stricter legislative policies regarding juveniles. Significant legal
procedure reforms that made juvenile court processes more similar to criminal (adult) court
processes, though not exactly the same, may have contributed to some of the discrepancy
between the federal agenda and what was going on in the states at the time. Adoption of rules
that further muddy the lines between juvenile courts and adult courts has been the principal
response to the most recent surge in violent youth crime. In recent years, states have
proceeded to impose stricter penalties for juvenile crimes, increase the number of cases that
can be transferred to criminal (adult) court, or remove some of the juvenile court's secrecy
protections.

Many of these reforms were implemented after the rate of teenage violent crime had
already started to decline. Over the past 20 years, punitive models that concentrate primarily
on the offense committed have gained influence on the rehabilitation model, which was
codified in the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 and focused on the
needs of the young offender. Although many children continue to grow up in environments that
"fail to provide the resources, the supports, and the opportunities essential to a healthy
development and reasonable preparation for productive adulthood," environments that put
children at high risk for delinquency, crime policies in the United States have been shifting in
favor of treating juveniles as adults. 40% of Americans living in poverty in 1997 were under the
age of 18 in the United States. The shortage of resources for the supervision of children's and
teenagers' free time is a result of structural changes in society, such as fewer two-parent
households and an increase in maternal employment.
 Individual, social, and communal circumstances, as well as their interconnections, have an
impact on behavior, according to research conducted over the past few decades on both typical
child development and the emergence of delinquent behavior. Everyone agrees that conduct,
especially antisocial and criminal behavior, is the consequence of a complex interaction
between a person's unique biological, genetic, and environmental elements. This interaction
begins during fetal development and lasts throughout a person's life (Bock and Goode, 1996). It
is obvious that genes influence biological development, yet without environmental factors,
biological development cannot occur. Therefore, conduct is influenced by both biology and
environment. Despite numerous risks, many children grow up without engaging in significant
delinquent activity. Risk variables cannot predict which specific children will turn into major or
persistent offenders, even though they may help identify which children require preventive
interventions the most.
The majority of adult criminals have long been recognized to have engaged in delinquent
conduct as children and adolescents, although most of these individuals do not go on to
become criminals as adults (Robins, 1978). Similar to adults, most children and adolescents who
engage in serious, chronic delinquency exhibit a variety of risk variables at varying levels, but
most children and adolescents with risk factors do not engage in serious, chronic delinquency.
Additionally, just a small portion of the risk is increased by any unique factor. However, it is
generally acknowledged that a child or adolescent's risk for engaging in delinquent behavior
increases as the number of risk factors they experience increases. The variety of the outcome
behaviors examined in the risk factor research is a challenge. Studies may look at conduct
disorder or other antisocial behavior disorders that fit the diagnostic criteria, violent behavior,
lying, or shoplifting, or they may focus on the outcome of interest, which is a juvenile court
referral or arrest. Additionally, at some phases of child and adolescent development than at
others, various risk factors and consequences could be more noticeable.
 The variety of the outcome behaviors examined in the risk factor research is a challenge.
Studies may look at conduct disorder or other antisocial behavior disorders that fit the
diagnostic criteria, violent behavior, lying, or shoplifting, or they may focus on the outcome of
interest, which is a juvenile court referral or arrest. Additionally, at some phases of child and
adolescent development than at others, various risk factors and consequences could be more
noticeable. The majority of the research that has looked at risk variables for delinquency is
focused on long-term studies of white males. Specific samples from high-risk settings were
chosen for certain of the samples. When applying this material to girls, minorities, and general
populations, caution must be exercised. However, much has been discovered about the
dangers of antisocial and delinquent behavior over the past 20 years. The goal of this chapter is
not to provide a thorough analysis of all the research on risk factors. Instead, it concentrates on
elements that are crucial to preventative efforts. See, for instance, Hawkins et al. (1998), Lipsey
and Derzon (1998), and Rutter et al. (1998) for reviews of the literature on risk factors.

Beginning with hazards at the person level, such as biological, psychological, behavioral,
and cognitive aspects, the chapter covers risk factors for crime. The following section discusses
social risk factors, such as peer and family ties. Finally, community-level risk factors are looked
at, including neighborhood and school characteristics. Each level is National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, despite the interaction of forces at the individual, social,
and community levels. 2001. The emergence of adolescent delinquency has been linked to a
wide range of individual circumstances and traits. These personal characteristics include age,
gender, pregnancy and delivery problems, impulsivity, aggression, and drug usage. Some
factors are active before birth (prenatal) or just before, during, and immediately after birth
(perinatal), while others may not become apparent until late childhood or throughout
adolescence. Some of these factors can be recognized in early childhood. Studying the
development of the individual in contact with the environment is necessary to completely
comprehend the development of these unique characteristics and their relationships to
delinquency. However, this part simply covers the individual elements in order to streamline
the presentation of the findings.
 Participation in criminal activity by a minor child, typically between the ages of 10 and 17, is
known as juvenile delinquency. Children who consistently engage in mischief or disobedience
are referred to as juvenile delinquents and are liable to legal action by the court system since
they are deemed to be outside of their parents' control. Each state has a unique legal structure
in place to deal with children who breach the law, which is sometimes known as "juvenile
delinquency" or "juvenile offending." Take a look at the definition of juvenile delinquency
below to learn more about this idea. When a child breaks a law, it is considered juvenile
delinquency. The processes that are followed when a juvenile commits a crime are different
from those for an adult offender. Juvenile court systems and juvenile detention centers are
dedicated to handling minor offenders in all jurisdictions. State laws frequently classify
individuals under the age of 17 as minors, but if the offense was particularly heinous, the legal
system may charge youngsters even younger as adults. Adolescence is when this kind of
juvenile delinquent behavior starts. However, unlike serial offenders, age-specific offenders'
activities stop before the youngster turns 18 years old. A juvenile's adolescent habits are
frequently a reliable predictor of the type of offender he will develop into.

Age-specific offenders stop being delinquent when they reach adulthood, but they
frequently experience worse mental health issues, substance misuse, and financial difficulties
than adults who never displayed delinquent conduct as children. Juvenile delinquent is a
moniker that many kids acquire at a young age, frequently between the ages of 6 and 12. As
children stretch their boundaries and work to establish their self-perception, they engage in a
variety of juvenile activities during the pre-teen and teenage years that may be viewed as
typical kid behavior. However, there are certain indicators that a child might be going in the
wrong way. The steps taken in the juvenile justice system are very different from those taken in
the case of adult offenders. To deal with juvenile criminals, each state has its own procedures
or programs. There are several ways that juvenile criminals interact with the police. Some are
detained after being discovered committing a crime, while others are reported to authorities by
parents or educators. Once the police are involved, they have a number of options for how to
handle a juvenile criminal.
 In order to allow minors charged with Heinous Offenses to be tried as adults, the Juvenile
Justice Act of 2015 seeks to replace the outdated Juvenile Justice Act of 2000 in India. In this
context, the term "juvenile" refers to teenagers who are between the ages of 16 and 18 or who
have not yet reached the age of majority. Juvenile crime is not something that a child is born
with, but it is mostly present in him as a result of the environment in which he is raised, his own
foolish behaviors, or just a lack of discipline and a good education. Building strong youngsters is
simpler than fixing damaged adults. One of a nation's greatest assets is thought to be its youth.
The future of a nation would not be very bright if this populace is not well-groomed. All of us
have a moral and ethical obligation to give every child a safe space in which to learn and
develop. The most frequent causes of juvenile delinquency are either a lack of education or
defects in upbringing brought on by an unhealthy sociocultural environment, which causes the
juvenile to become physically and intellectually unfit as well as a law-breaking citizen.

To reduce inequality and ensure social fairness in the nation, all young people must be
given fair and equal opportunities. Children are expected to be respectful, obedient, and
endowed with positive traits. Some youngsters, however, are unable to adhere to the
predetermined social and legal norms owing to specific circumstances. These kids frequently
engage in juvenile delinquency or juvenile crime, which is criminal activity. More changes to this
law were made in 2006 and 2010. Due to its weakness in combating crimes where young
people engage in horrible crimes like rape and murder but cannot be tried, this law received
widespread criticism following the Delhi gang rape (16th December 2012). After being approved
by the Parliament in December 2015, the Juvenile Justice Bill, 2014, became the Juvenile Justice
Act, 2015. It becomes effective on January 15, 2016. According to Section 2(a) of the Act of
1986, a "boy who has not attained the age of 16 years and a girl who has not attained the age
of 18 years" is considered a juvenile. In the meantime, India approved and signed the 1989 UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), which recognized everyone under the age of 18
as a juvenile.
 The primary socialization institution for children is their family. From their families, children
pick up fundamental ideas about right and wrong. Families also create their own values and
establish societal norms. Children's personalities can be made or broken by their families. The
parents and siblings play the most significant roles in the family. The majority of teenagers who
engage in any type of delinquent behavior come from families who were unable to offer their
kids a solid foundation. The most significant causes of juvenile delinquency can include broken
families, single-parent families, divorced families, frequent parent fights, a lack of trust and
confidence between parents, criminal parents, or psychiatric issues in parents. Sibling rivalry or
unequal treatment of youngsters can be another factor. Children's personalities must be
shaped by their parents and older siblings. Children or younger siblings may be inspired to
engage in criminal action when parents or older siblings act immorally or violate the law.
Parents or older siblings are frequently involved in many social difficulties in households.
Numerous issues may arise, including child labor, racial discrimination, age discrimination,
gender discrimination, and animal rights violations.

Children and young people imitate what they see in their homes. Because many wealthy
families do not feel ashamed of their use of child labor, it is difficult for children to comprehend
how morally and socially wrong it is. Teenagers become involved in violence as a result of social
problems that produce stress. Today's teenagers prioritize morality above all else. Teenagers
need to learn how to respect their families and other people. Everyone they know and come
into contact with should be treated with respect. Some parents neglect their elderly relatives,
and it is well known that such kids never respect their parents or older siblings since they see
their parents behaving disrespectfully toward them. The family ought to be optimistic about life
and about society. Children should be taught healthy social values, norms, and standards by
their parents and older siblings so that they can act appropriately in front of the larger
community. Every child looks up to their family, and seeing their parents and siblings behaving
well might inspire a child to do the same. Families in need of assistance from the government
should be helped to improve their financial situation. Children should learn the value of
observing social norms from their parents. In order to improve public safety and welfare,
parents should explain to their children the repercussions of disobeying the law. The rights of
all people should be respected, fairness should be upheld, and discrimination should be
condemned by parents.
Children are our nation's future. Everyone is accountable for making sure they live in a secure
and welcoming environment. According to data, the rate of adolescent delinquency has
significantly increased in emerging nations like India during the past ten years. This raises the
fundamental question: How did the concept of juvenile delinquency come about? What exactly
is juvenile crime? Whether or not to treat young offenders who commit such horrible crimes as
adults or as minors? What are the typical reasons for such criminal behavior? how a key factor
in juvenile delinquency is poverty? What are the methods for prevention? What circumstances
give rise to juvenile crime? All countries experience delinquency, although highly industrialized
countries with big cities experience it the most frequently. The phrase was created to save
minor offenders the embarrassment of being listed in court documents. Treatment of offenders
is the primary goal of juvenile laws. But as the number of crimes perpetrated by juveniles has
increased in the current situation, the phrase itself has become derogatory. Families with stress
and a lot of relational issues are more likely to produce delinquents. Given the rise in juvenile
criminality, it is urgent that the required actions be taken and that the current law be amended
so that it can be strictly implemented. For the trial of the delinquents, special courts with
specially trained Magistrates are established.

The juvenile is given a "adjudication" rather than a "trial," following which a "disposition"
and a sentence are given. Additionally, it allows for the establishment of delinquents'
reformatory schools. According to statistics1, the issue of adolescent neglect and delinquency is
significantly growing in a developing nation like India. The primary causes of delinquency
include poverty, unstable housing, family conflicts, emotional abuse, rural-urban migration, the
breakdown of social norms and the joint family system, crimes and abuse committed by parents
or guardians, a failing educational system, media influence, and unfavorable living conditions
such as those found in slums. More than just a doorbell prank, a child fighting another for a ball,
or kids hurling water balloons at one another constitute juvenile delinquency. These can be just
as dangerous as crimes involving drugs or crimes against people. The concept of prevention and
the actions done to stop such delinquent activities include identifying the causes and risks
connected to the offenses, correcting them, and then creating protective factors to balance the
risks. Crime rates are at an all-time high in urbanized civilizations where traditional lifestyles,
social control, and local communities are lax. The future of a country is built on its youth. Our
first duty and responsibility is to work to protect them and help them integrate into society.
LOCAL
Crimes committed by minors under the age of 18 are referred to as juvenile delinquency. About
60% of juvenile offences fall under crimes against property, according to figures from 2012 to
2015 given by the Philippine National Police. According to statistics from the PNP between 2012
and 2015, they include theft, robbery, malicious harm, and estafa. Contrarily, crimes against
people—including rape, attempted rape, acts of lasciviousness, physical injuries, murder,
attempted murder, seduction, grave threats, abduction, and homicide—make up 36% of the
crimes perpetrated by children during the same time period. Infractions of special laws
including Republic Act (RA) 9165 (prohibited substances), Presidential Decree 1866 (illegal
possession of firearms), and Presidential Decree 1602 made up the last 4% of crimes committed
by children in the Philippines between 2012 and 2015. (illegal gambling). Youth criminals are
apparently getting younger and more daring, despite the fact that minor offenses
predominantly involved children and teenagers. Some young people are now involved in
horrible activities that could land them in a life sentence. The top 3 crimes committed by kids in
2015 were rape, bodily assault, and stealing.

2015 saw a total of 3,715 theft cases and 1,859 physical harm cases. 642 incidents of rape
involving juvenile offenders were reported. Although there are a shocking number of juvenile
offenders in the Philippines, rules prevent them from being tried as adults. Since the State and
laws in existence place a high priority on their welfare, rehabilitation, and reintegration into
society, CICLs are able to better their life in the wake of the crimes they have previously
committed. The Philippine Juvenile Justice Law's reformative provisions are not being
implemented as well because of a lack of financial support from the government or because
there are no housing programs that should be set up for their welfare during their alleged trials,
despite the fact that the laws of the land aim to protect these children. Unfortunately, these
not only compromise the effectiveness of rehabilitation but also put kids at risk of systemic
abuse. There are many social problems that might be linked to the reasons of juvenile
delinquency in the Philippines, but poverty is often cited by the police as the main motivator for
young people to become criminals. This assumption might be accurate given that theft and
robbery make up a significant portion of adolescent offenders. However, there are more factors
that could motivate kids to commit crimes,
 In the Philippines, some juvenile offenders are of school age, but the majority of them lack
access to a traditional education because of financial hardships or interpersonal problems.
Children who receive a formal education not only acquire necessary life skills but also acquire
priceless knowledge about the possible effects of their activities. Studies show that a child's
willingness to engage in criminal activity decreases with the level of education they have access
to. However, some kids are forced into a life of crime because marginalized teenagers cannot
receive the required education and exposure to moral advice. These kids could now better
understand their surroundings thanks to technological advancements. Reps. Irwin C. Tieng,
Mariano Michael M. Velarde Jr., and Jose L. Atienza Jr.'s explanatory note for HB 922 stated
that "the huge influence of modern communication has brought minors immense awareness of
their surroundings." "Minors nowadays are more responsible and have a better understanding
of life than minors had ten years ago. Therefore, a review of our laws to make them more
current is only appropriate. Republic Act No. 9344, which governs juvenile justice in the
Philippines, places a special emphasis on the phases involving "children at risk and minors in
confrontation with the law, from prevention to rehabilitation and reintegration."

When placed in an institution after being arrested, it protects youngsters who have been
accused or charged with a crime and enables them to be kept apart from seasoned criminals
and adult offenders. The juvenile justice system is portrayed in this law as a support system for
children who run afoul of the law. In addition to programs and rehabilitation facilities primarily
created to assist CICLs in reintegrating themselves into society following a probationary period,
these include proceedings that are age-appropriate for youngsters. To enhance the
circumstances of children held in captivity, this Republic Act was passed. This 2006 legislative
achievement "was a landmark that offered many children around the Philippines a new lease
on life," according to UNICEF. Thousands of kids were living in appalling conditions and were at
a significant risk of abuse since they were living with adult criminals before this law was
established. They ran a significant danger of contracting diseases like tuberculosis, HIV, and
pneumonia, in addition to having access to little food and being subjected to physical and
sexual abuse while being held captive. Representatives Irwin C. Tieng and Mariano Jose L.
Atienza Jr. and Michael M. Velarde Jr.
 It cannot be argued that the law is being implemented by the authorities and the
rehabilitation facilities, despite the fact that it was created to provide CICLs with much-needed
support and restorative programs. A socialist organization called Karapatan claims that CICLs
frequently violate human rights. In fact, they are already in juvenile facilities or, worse,
imprisonment before a court of law finds them guilty of a crime, where they endure the same
psychological and mental suffering as adult criminal offenders while in detention. Additionally,
DSWD facilities that serve CICLs largely do not receive enough funding to provide proper
counseling and psychosocial support for the Philippines' juvenile justice system. "Children in
confrontation with the law regularly end up behind bars like normal criminals even inside
facilities managed by the DSWD or LGUs," claims Cristina Palabay, secretary-general of
Karapatan. Girls are sometimes kept in jails with women since there aren't enough facilities for
children, forcing the authorities to combine CICLs and adults. Rehabilitation and reintegration
for CICLs have become more difficult due to a lack of proper assistance and specialized facilities,
and the authorities are unable to handle many CICLs because of a lack of resources and the
absence of a well-defined framework. The Philippine National Police (PNP) and Bureau of Jail
Management and Penology (BJMP) facilities housed 66,825 convicts from January to November
[2011], 95% of whom were being held as pretrial detainees, according to the US State
Department's 2011 Country Report on Human Rights Practices.

The others had all received criminal convictions. 6,107 adult women and 501 juveniles
made up the total number of inmates and detainees. The Public Attorney's Office (PAO), the
inmate's private attorney, or through appeals sponsored by NGO's, the BJMP freed 104 child
prisoners within the same time period, typically in response to a court order. Thankfully, steps
have been taken to enhance the juvenile justice system in the Philippines. Former interior
secretary Mel Senen Sarmiento has urged local governments to enhance their juvenile
integration programs. The Juvenile Justice Welfare Council also issued recommendations for
local government entities to adopt in order to create a Comprehensive Local Juvenile
Intervention Program in conjunction with this demand (CLJIP). These regulations include the
allocation of funds, execution, supervision, and evaluation of the CLJIP. Additionally, LGUs were
mandated by law to establish and run "Bahay Pag-asa" facilities for intervention and support.
These institutions offer round-the-clock child care and were created, funded, and run to offer
residential care for kids who had broken the law. At least 12-year-old CICLs may be committed
to these youth-care facilities, where they will receive care and supervision from qualified
caregivers. For instance, the Molave Youth Home in Quezon City, one of the most progressive
cities in the Philippines, supports juvenile justice there. In the Social Services Development
Department (SSDD) building, which is located behind City Hall, is where the facility is housed.
While they await trial, young offenders aged 9 to 17 are given temporary custody and care by
Molave.
 It is not the first time that a teenager has perpetrated horrible crimes in the Philippines.
Young criminals are acting more boldly and committing crimes that are more serious. The
Juvenile Justice law, whose implementation is currently also being considered by some
lawmakers to deter the commission of drug-related heinous crimes, has allowed them to
advance from petty street crimes to the kind of heinous crimes that would land them in life in
prison or, worse, on death row in the absence of the law. However, children who are at risk or
who are in legal trouble are more likely to be the victims of human rights violations. Therefore,
they require a successful intervention to change their behavior. However, it appeared that the
law was unable to reduce the number of juvenile offenders. Worse, young people are
increasingly implicated in minor and even serious crimes, some of which include murder,
peddling, and robbery-holdup. This has led some lawmakers to consider reducing the legal age
of majority. In an effort to "educate youngsters to comprehend responsibility," there have been
discussions in recent years about decreasing the age of criminal accountability to 12 years old.

House Bill (HB) 002 was introduced in 2016 in the newly seated 17th Congress by Rep.
Fredenil H. Castro of the Second District of Capiz and former House Speaker Pantaleon D.
Alvarez. The amendment, officially titled "An Act Amending Republic Act 9344, As Amended by
Republic Act 10630, and Reverting the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility from 15 Years
Old to 9 Years Old," aims to reduce the current minimum age of criminal responsibility from 15
years old to 9 years old. "It is the policy of the state to ensure that the Filipino youth shall be
taught to accept responsibility for their words and deeds as early as possible, and not to unduly
pamper them with impunity from the criminal responsibility upon reaching the age of 9 years,"
both representatives stated in their Declaration of Policy, outlining the "necessity" of such an
amendment. The exploitation of young offenders in the Philippines by organized crime groups
to commit a crime, primarily drug trafficking, worried the bill's writers in particular. The same
was made clear and reaffirmed in their Explanatory Note, which stated: "While the purpose of
protecting Filipino young may seem extremely admirable, its results have had the opposite
effects—the pampering of youthful offenders who commit crimes knowing they can get away
with it." With this reform, juvenile offenders in the Philippines will be able to stand trial for
their offenses and be found guilty as adults. The use of young children by syndicates and other
criminals in their drug dealing and other syndicate activities is claimed by supporters of this
reform.
About a century ago, the United States created a separate juvenile justice system with the
intention of keeping young offenders out of the hands of the criminal justice system and
promoting rehabilitation tailored to the requirements of each individual juvenile. There were a
number of ways in which this system was to differ from adult or criminal court. Instead than
focusing on the behavior that brought the child or teenager before the court, the emphasis was
to be placed on them as a person in need of support. The hearings were informal, and the
juvenile court judge was given a lot of latitude. Procedures available to adults, such as the right
to an attorney, the right to know the charges against one, the right to a jury trial, and the
opportunity to face one's accuser, were deemed superfluous because the judge was required to
act in the child's best interests. To prevent interfering with the child's or adolescent's potential
to be rehabilitated and reintegrated into society, juvenile court sessions were closed to the
public and juvenile records were to stay private. These distinctions were highlighted by the
language employed in juvenile court itself.

Juveniles are not prosecuted for crimes but rather delinquencies; they are not found guilty
but rather adjudged delinquent; and they are not sent to prison but rather to a training facility
or reformatory. Social welfare and social control, or focusing on the individual child's best
interests vs focusing on punishment, incapacitation, and safeguarding society from certain
misdeeds, have historically been in tension with one another in practice. This tension has
persisted despite changing throughout time and notably varying from one jurisdiction to
another. State legal reforms in juvenile justice, particularly those dealing with serious offenses,
have placed an emphasis on punitiveness, accountability, and a concern for public safety,
rejecting conventional concerns for diversion and rehabilitation in favor of a get-tough
approach to juvenile crime and punishment in response to the rise in violent crime in the 1980s.
The 17 states that changed the purpose clause of their juvenile courts to emphasize public
safety, certainty of sanctions, and offender accountability are examples of this shift in emphasis
from a focus on rehabilitating the individual to punishing the act (Torbet and Szymanski, 1998).
The idea that juvenile justice is excessively lenient on delinquents, who may pose an equal
threat to public safety to their adult criminal counterparts, is ingrained in this shift in emphasis.
More aggressive juvenile enforcement, making it simpler (or in some cases mandatory) to treat
a juvenile who has committed certain offenses as an adult, shifting decision-making about
where to try a juvenile from the judge to the prosecutor or the state legislature, altering
sentencing options, and opening juvenile proceedings and records are just a few of the legal
reforms and policy changes that have occurred under the get-tough umbrella.
 Children as young as 7 years old might be tried in a criminal court and, if found guilty, given
a jail or even death sentence in the United States until the early 19th century. According to the
presumption that children under the age of seven cannot have criminal intent, they are not
subject to punishment. Along with kindergarten, child labor laws, mandatory schooling, school
lunches, and vocational education, the construction of special juvenile courts and prisons was
one of the Progressive Era reforms intended to promote the best possible development of
children in the industrial metropolis (Schlossman, 1983). Reformers thought it was needlessly
harsh and corrupting to treat children and teenagers like adult criminals. According to one
reformer, the juvenile court was established primarily "to prevent minors from being punished
as criminals" (Van Waters, 1927:217). Children and young adolescents brought before the court
were assumed to need the court's intervention and guidance rather than just punishment due
to the assumption that they are developmentally different from adults and are therefore more
amenable to rehabilitation. They were also assumed to not be criminally responsible for their
actions. They were not to be charged with any particular offences. Understanding a juvenile's
circumstances and locating suitable, specialized rehabilitative services were more crucial than
determining why the youngster was in court in the first place, whether it was due of an offense,
parental abuse or neglect, or because they were uncontrolled (Coalition for Juvenile Justice,
1998; Schlossman, 1983).

According to historians, the creation of the juvenile court not only served to deflect children
from the criminal justice system but also widened the scope of social control over young people
by incorporating status jurisdiction into state juvenile legislation. The first juvenile court in the
country was established in Chicago in 1899 according to the Illinois Juvenile Court Act of 1899.
The law gave the court authority over abused, abandoned, and neglected children under the
age of 16. Instead of punishment, the court prioritized rehabilitation. To reduce stigma, the
court's records had to be kept private. The law prohibited the incarceration of minors younger
than 12 in jails and required the separation of juveniles from adults when they were detained.
The act also allowed for informality in court procedures. The concept of the juvenile court
quickly caught on. Every state, with the exception of Maine and Wyoming, had a functioning
juvenile court by 1925. (Schlossman, 1983). It is challenging to determine how successfully the
juvenile courts across the nation lived up to the intentions of the founders. First, the majority of
the clients were from the lower classes and were the offspring of immigrants, which made it
difficult for them to successfully divert most children and teenagers from the criminal justice
system. The courts treated matters involving boys and girls differently because they appeared
in court for various reasons. The vast majority of girls were charged with "immorality,"
compared to a relatively tiny percentage of boys; yet, more girls than boys were sent to
reformatories, while fewer boys were placed on probation. Third, it used to be much more
prevalent than it is now for agents other than the police to refer cases to court, particularly
parents, relatives, and neighbors. Fourth, roughly as many cases were handled "unofficially"
(without a court appearance) by juvenile courts, particularly the probation staffs.
 It will be clear that a person cannot be classified as a habitual criminal unless he has been
found guilty and given a sentence by the courts of this nation at least three times for any of the
crimes of robbery, larceny, estafa, embezzlement, forgery, or a violation of the laws against
vagrancy or prostitution, or for three of the aforementioned crimes, and that his third
conviction and sentence must occur within ten years of his release from From all of this, it can
be inferred that a defendant must be convicted of a crime three times, or three of the crimes
listed above, in order to be considered a habitual criminal under law; the second conviction
must be for a crime committed after the first, or after the first conviction's sentence has been
served, and the third conviction must be for a crime committed within ten years of the second
conviction. The legislation also specifies the additional punishment that may be imposed on a
habitual offender who has committed any of the aforementioned offences three, four, five, or
six times or more times overall. If a person must be found guilty three times of any crime listed
in the law, or of three such crimes, in order to be considered a habitual criminal under the law,
and if the second and third offenses occurred after the first and second convictions,
respectively, in order to apply the additional penalty for the fourth offense, the person must
also have been found guilty of the third offense or have completed the sentence for it.

The explanation behind this is simple: Due to the graduated nature of the additional
penalties set forth by law, their application should also be gradual; for example, the fourth
additional penalty provided for a fourth crime must only be applied when the crime has been
committed after the third conviction or service, and the same goes for the fifth, sixth, and
additional crimes until the habitual offender has served the additional penalty provided for his
case. If a habitual offender is to receive additional punishment for a new crime, he or she must
have previously been found guilty or have completed the preceding offense's term. An habitual
offender who commits multiple crimes listed in the law after being found guilty or serving their
sentence, whether all at once or one after another, without having first been found guilty of
any of them before committing the others, cannot be sentenced to the additional penalty for
each of said new crimes because that would be against the law's reformatory intent and the
graduated additional penalties, and because he would also violate the law's prohibition on life
without parole.
 As can be seen from the aforementioned regulations, the Revised Penal Code recognizes
three scenarios in which offenders who have received many convictions find themselves,
namely repetition, recidivism, and habitual deliquency. Any crime that is not included under the
same title of the Revised Penal Code is referred to as repetition, as is recidivism for crimes listed
under the same title of the Code as well as habitual delinquency for robbery, theft, estafa, and
falsification. Again, it doesn't matter how many times you've been punished as long as you've
received at least one, or at least two, depending on the severity of the penalty. The number of
prior convictions is also irrelevant in cases of recidivism if the previous convictions were for
offenses other than robbery, theft, estafa, and falsification but were included in the same title
as the most recent incident. However, if the previous convictions were for robbery, theft, or
another crime, the number of the same convictions is crucial. If there was only one prior
conviction, recidivism existed; however, if there had been two or more prior convictions for
robbery, theft, or another crime, habitual delinquency existed. Therefore, it may be concluded
that the law has dealt with offenders who commit robbery, etc., more than once in accordance
with a logical and general strategy. According to this strategy, anyone who is convicted a
second time is a recidivist and, if he does not change his ways and instead commits robbery or
other similar crimes a third time or more frequently, he becomes a habitual offender. Thus,
recidivism comes first, followed by habitual delinquency. In cases of robbery, etc., these two
circumstances are phases in the criminal's life that occur in succession rather than
simultaneously.

He is no longer a recidivist but a habitual delinquent after the third, fourth, or subsequent
conviction. It would appear that considering his first conviction again as an aggravating
circumstance of recidivism in meeting out the principal penalty when he is found guilty for the
third, fourth, fifth, or additional times runs counter to the general scheme of the law as I
interpret it and have already explained. His first conviction had already been counted as an
aggravating circumstance of recidivism in fixing the principal penalty when he was convicted for
the second time. Therefore, in my opinion, none of the earlier convictions should be taken into
account as an aggravating factor of recidivism when determining the primary punishment upon
the fifth conviction of robbery or comparable offenses, as in the current case. All four prior
convictions must be taken into account in order for the habitual delinquency standard to be
met and the appropriate supplementary punishment to be imposed. Furthermore, since all past
convictions are already taken into account when determining the supplementary punishment, it
would seem unfair to count any one of them as an aggravating condition when determining the
major penalty after the fifth conviction. The law is interpreted to take into account committing
the same crime twice, first as an aggravating circumstance when imposing the primary
punishment and subsequently as one of the necessary prior convictions for determining the
additional punishment for persistent delinquency. Not at all in like. This legal maxim prohibits
punishing a person twice for the same offense.